Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 5 February.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (CASTLEFIELD) BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

CLIFTON SUSPENSION BRIDGE BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 5 February.

PORTSMOUTH CITY COUNCIL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I rule that the Portsmouth City Council Bill should be introduced as a Public Bill. Mr. Speaker Fitzroy ruled on 8 February 1939 that Bills which are allowed to proceed as Private Bills should never raise questions other than practical local questions. The Portsmouth City Council Bill affects other ports in the land and it also raises the question of public policy with regard to the export of live animals. For those reasons, I rule that it may proceed as a Public Bill only.

Bill withdrawn.

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL

STANDARD LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

STEVENAGE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12 February.

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH (LION WALK COLCHESTER) BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

WESLEY'S CHAPEL, CITY ROAD BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Expenditure

Mr. Parry: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the latest estimated saving in the field of social services which he expects to make during the current financial year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): Before answering the hon. Gentleman's question, I hope that I may be permitted to extend our best wishes to Mr. Speaker on his birthday.
Local authorities have been asked to reduce their overall current expenditure in 1979–80 to a level of about 1½ per cent. below that for 1978–79. It is not yet possible to estimate how far authorities will make part of this saving in the personal social services.

Mr. Parry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the cuts in spending are causing the closure in Liverpool and in other cities of old people's homes, children's homes and establishments for the physically and mentally handicapped? Does he agree with such policies that attack the most vulnerable in the community?

Sir G. Young: It is up to individual local authorities to decide how best to achieve the reductions in the light of local circumstances. As I have been around the country visiting social services departments, I have been impressed by how many have been able to meet real needs more effectively while, at the same time, spending less public money.

Mr. Bowden: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that every encouragement be given to the elderly to stay in their homes? Will he ask our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider paying a shortfall on pensions? Failure to do so would be a breach of a moral obligation.

Sir G. Young: I understand that that matter was raised extensively in Standing Committee this morning. My hon. Friend gave a full answer concerning the Government's position.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that, within the area health authority that serves both his constituents and mine, cuts in social security benefits have led to serious consideration being given to the closure of a children's home? While that is being considered, the Harrow school—registered as a charity in the same area—gets a tax relief of £36,000. Is not that obscene?

Sir G. Young: It is for the Home Secretary to decide the law on charity. It does not concern my Department.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to how much money could be saved by the National Health Service if we investigated the abuse of its facilities by tourists from other countries, with which we do not have a reciprocal arrangement?

Sir G. Young: That subject is under active consideration within the Department. At the same time, we are urging other countries to extend the same hospitality as we offer visitors to our tourists when they are overseas.

Mr. Alfred Morris: May I, Mr. Speaker, endorse the birthday congratulations that have been extended to you. We offer you our warmest best wishes.
Has the Minister seen the charge that appeared in The Times today by the Bishop of Coventry that the Government's policy of reducing personal social services by 7 per cent. is inconsistent and self-contradictory? Has he also seen the statement by the president of the Association of Directors of Social Services that this policy will tear families with disabled children apart? When will the Secretary of State stand up to the Treasury and end this mean and demeaning policy?

Sir G. Young: In 1977–78 the Labour Government cut local authority current expenditure by 2 per cent. in real terms. That was a much bigger cut than we are seeking this year.

Heating Costs

Mr. John Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to increase the heating allowance to recipients of supplementary benefit.

Mr. Hooky: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in the light of large impending increases in fuel charges


and the continuing rise in the rate of inflation, he will bring forward proposals to give extra help to one-parent families.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): It has already been announced that the Government are reviewing the whole range of help available to assist needy consumers, including lone parents, with their fuel bills. The supplementary benefit heating additions were increased last November and are due to be increased again in November of this year.

Mr. Evans: Does the Secretary of State accept that, unless there is a substantial increase in the heating allowance, which takes account of the appalling level of inflation and of the disgraceful gas and electricity price increases recently imposed, there is a danger that an increasing number of old people will die of hypothermia next winter?

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the supplementary benefit heating additions are uprated on the basis of increases in the fuel component of the retail prices index. They take into account expected future price increases, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is a reasonable way of dealing with that element.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the massive tax on gas—decreed by the Government—is equivalent to the medieval salt tax? It will have a brutal effect on the standards of living of the poor. It can be justified only by major compensatory payments throughout the range of the social benefits scheme.

Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have given a clear promise to bring forward further proposals—[HON. MEMBERS: "When"]—which will give special help to those on low incomes—including the elderly—to meet their fuel bills.

Mr. Paul Dean: I welcome the Government's review of the whole range of fuel allowances, but will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will press ahead as fast as possible with that review? There are understandable anxieties among the elderly, disabled and other needy groups, concerning the inevitably escalat-

ing fuel costs, for which the Government are not to blame.

Mr. Jenkin: I recognise those anxieties. The price increases will begin to take effect in April. However, I think it is right that they will not be reflected in consumers' bills for another three months—and then only for the summer quarter. The main impact of those increases will not be felt until next winter. We intend to announce the results of our review long before then.

Mr. Freeson: Is that good enough? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Conservative Members seem to think that it is enough. Is it good enough to announce a review that has been announced four or five times when similar questions have been asked? It is well known that something must be done as quickly as possible to establish some type of fuel allowance or rebate scheme. It is possible for the Government to be open. They do not need a private review. They should open up the question and allow hon. Members and others to put proposals to them. The Government should come forward, before this summer at the latest, with a scheme, or alternative schemes, for a fuel allowance similar to that operated for rent allowances.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that at Question Time hon. Members must not argue a case. They must ask questions.

Mr. Jenkin: No doubt that question will be raised in debate this afternoon. From the right hon. Gentleman's experience in the Department of the Environment, he will know that any question of a major, new and comprehensive fuel scheme cannot be contemplated now, because of the inevitable administrative constraints, quite apart from the question of cost. We aim to provide meaningful help to those in greatest need who would otherwise be hit hardest by the fuel price increases. I hope that we shall be able to announce the results of the review long before next winter.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Will the Secretary of State give us an assurance on two counts? First, will he assure us that the restricted number of categories that presently applies will be extended under the new scheme? Secondly, will he assure us that the size of the increase will be


commensurate with the enormous percentage increase in electricity and gas bills?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to anticipate the results of the review. That, of course, I cannot do. It is clear that the scheme which I announced before Christmas gave substantial help to those in greatest need. It covered all fuels, not just electricity and the electricity discount scheme.

Mr. Marlow: If there is not already an index, will my right hon. Friend set up an index that measures the cost of living for one-parent families? Children have only one childhood. If their cost of living appears to be going up at a rate that is faster than normal, will he persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise child benefit, and other support for one-parent families, in the Budget?

Mr. Jenkin: I know that many hon. Members in all parts of the House are anxious to do the best they can for one-parent families as they face particular difficulties. In our fuel help scheme, which we announced before Christmas, we therefore included provision for those at work who receive family income supplement. We gave the supplementary addition automatically to those with children under 5. The question of a separate index is a different point. If my hon. Friend tables a question, I shall try to answer it.

Benefits (Payment)

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy on the method and frequency of the payment of social benefits, and in particular the use of post office facilities.

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration has been given to altering the method of payment of social benefits by the Post Office.

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for withdrawing his Department's services from post offices.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): As part of the Government's campaign to improve efficiency, an ex-

amination has been made of the arrangements for paying social security benefits, including the frequency of payments and whether the public should be able to choose payment of their benefits direct into a bank account. Changing these arrangements offers scope for saving taxpayers' money by reducing administrative costs. My right hon. Friend is considering a study team's report on these arrangements in conjunction with Sir Derek Rayner. Any changes emerging from this study will be made only after the most careful consideration of the social and other consequences and after proper consultation.

Mr. McCrindle: Does the Minister agree that to pay pensions and other benefits less frequently might cause a great deal of hardship? As many recipients are unlikely to have bank accounts, the suggestion that they should be paid in that way should be carefully investigated before proceeding. Will the Minister confirm that any suggestion of ceasing to pay social benefits through sub-post offices will mean that those post offices will experience great difficulty in surviving?

Mrs. Chalker: No one will be forced to have his payment made direct into a bank account. We wish to ensure that the most vulnerable groups in society—those on supplementary benefit and the very old—will be able to receive their payments weekly, and through post offices if they so wish. Other people may need to adapt to a different payment period that will strike a better balance between their wishes for fairly frequent payment and the needs of taxpayers who have to foot the bill. No one will be forced to receive payments through the post office. Those who are vulnerable will not be forced to receive payments other than weekly.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the hon. Lady assure the House that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the issues before the Government make a decision? Is she aware that many people receiving social security already have difficulty coping with a weekly payment, and a less frequently paid benefit would cause a great deal of distress?

Mrs. Chalker: When I saw the report, I raised many of these points. However, as has been done in many other countries,


we must consider payment direct into bank accounts where that is desired by the recipient. We should, however, ensure that there is a choice. We should also ensure that we specifically help those families who have difficulty in budgeting, even on a weekly basis.

Mr. Dormand: We have heard similar words from the Government before without seeing any action. Is the Minister aware of the considerable hardship and inconvenience that will be caused, particularly to old people? That factor must be taken into consideration when she and other Ministers are contemplating so-called efficiency. The Minister said that there will be a choice and I hope that she will ensure that it is so.
Is the Minister further aware that many people have never even heard of a bank account, let alone possess one, and that the proposal will be of benefit to only a few people? Finally, what will the hon. Lady say to sub-postmasters who have invested their savings in their businesses and who may go bankrupt as a result of such measures?

Mrs. Chalker: In recent years the number of people opening bank accounts has greatly increased. The facility is being requested. The previous Government were making preparations for automatic credit transfer and we are doing likewise.
With regard to sub-post offices, there has been a lot of erroneous comment. It will not be a compulsory measure, as hon. Gentlemen are mouthing at me. I assure the House that we are considering the measure in great detail.

Mr. Burden: I hope that my hon. Friend and the Government will not make too much of a meal of the measure. Is it not already possible for people who wish it to have their pensions paid through a bank account?

Mrs. Chalker: I regret to inform my hon. Friend that, although a payable order may be sent to a beneficiary, it is not possible to have it paid direct into a bank account. That is part of the proposal that we are considering as a result of the study team's report?

Mr. Orme: Does the Minister agree that it is bad enough for the Government to fail to meet their commitments, for

example, with regard to the shortfall in pensions, but they are now proposing a fortnightly or monthly payment? Is the hon. Lady aware that there are 26,000 post offices throughout the country? Is she further aware that a principle of child benefit is that it should be paid to the mother, and that the proposal will run counter to that?

Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of how many post offices there are. I am also well aware of the false comments that have been made in recent weeks. It is important that, as of right, the mother should receive child benefit. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am taking all these matters fully into account.

Mr. Tapsell: May I reiterate to my hon. Friend the point already made from these Benches—that sub-post offices are of great importance in rural areas? They alone perhaps keep the village shop economically viable. At a time when so many facilities are being withdrawn—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not putting a question. He is asserting a point of view. Perhaps he will now put a question.

Mr. Tapsell: Will my hon. Friend bear that very much in mind?

Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are well aware of the importance of the sub-post office in suburban communities and particularly in rural communities, where it is often the only shop. I am considering the whole matter in conjunction with Ministers from other Departments.

Mr. Stallard: How much do the Government hope to save by the change in procedure?

Mrs. Chalker: We cannot yet forecast definite savings. It has been estimated that savings in administrative costs could rise to £50 million a year, but simplification should lower that saving to perhaps £35 million. Administrative charges are constantly increasing and money available should be spent on benefits, not administration.

Vaccine-damaged Children

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if any changes have been made in arrangements made to


assist vaccine-damaged children; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No. The arrangements remain exactly as my predecessor left them.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not surprised at the low percentage of claimants whose claims are being satisfied? Bearing in mind the low numbers, the latest campaign is understandable. In the light of all that, can he repeat his assurance that there has been no amendment in the advice given by his officials on the interpretation of the Act?

Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the scheme that is being administered is that which was approved by Parliament when the Vaccine Damage Payments Act was passed. No administrative directions have been given to those operating the scheme. Over 300 awards have been made, and, if the 1,100 claims awaiting review by tribunals succeed in the same proportions as hitherto, the total number will be around 600. No one has ever suggested that we are dealing with significantly greater numbers of vaccine-damaged children than that.

Mr. Ashley: Does the Secretary of State agree that the present payment scheme is not a compensation scheme in the same way as that operated for other special cases, such as industrial injuries compensation? Can he tell the House whether he refuses to pay proper compensation because he rejects Pearson's views that vaccine-damaged children are a special case, because the Government cannot afford to compensate the number of children damaged, or because he believes that these children are less injured than people compensated for industrial injuries? Finally, does he believe that he can fob these children off with £10,000 because they do not have a powerful trade union to fight for them?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman knows that these are difficult problems. It was because the House recognised the special duty that the community owes to vaccine-damaged children that we agreed on all sides that it was right to make a special payment under the provisions of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act. However much sympathy we have for these unfortunate families, we have to ask our-

selves how far it is right to go on making more special payments to that group when we all know of families with children suffering equal hardship and disability and with equal needs but who would not qualify for compensation. Our view is that any further scheme of help for families with severely disabled children must await the time when we can introduce a general benefits scheme, which will of course have high priority when further resources become available.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend look into the delay in hearing appeals under the scheme? Some cases have been outstanding for a long time.

Mr. Jenkin: I recognise that fact, that it causes great anxiety to parents. The number of tribunals that can operate is limited by the need for highly specialist medical representation. I hope that cases will be cleared as swiftly as possible, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is even more important to give a fair hearing to each case.

Mr. Ennals: Is the Secretary of State concerned about the small number—only 320—who have so far been given compensation? Is he satisfied that the term "seriously disabled" is not being judged too harshly? Is he still insisting, as he has a right to, that when there is a problem of proof, which is always difficult, the balance should always be in favour of the claimant? Finally, is he satisfied that the scheme is working as well as intended?

Mr. Jenkin: I recognise the anxieties. The scheme is unchanged from that introduced in the last Parliament by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) himself. Of course, there is a number of families who will have genuinely thought that they might be eligible for help but whose handicap, on the balance of probabilities—that is the test the Government wrote into the Act—cannot be attributed to the vaccination programme.
The degree of handicap was again approved by the last Parliament. An 80 per cent. degree of disability was set. It was felt that help should go to those families with the most severely disabled children. That is the line that was taken. That is the law now being administered by the tribunals.

Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the difference between this group of handicapped children and others is that this group were handicapped through following a policy publicly urged on the country by successive Governments and that the Government therefore have a responsibility to them, over and above other groups? Does he agree that it would be appalling if the Government refused to introduce a comprehensive compensation scheme for handicapped people based on the Pearson report? If that is not to happen—we shall be pleased to know whether it is or not—will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to review those people coming within the £10,000 scheme to make sure that, instead of receiving an interim repayment, they get full compensation for their injuries?

Mr. Jenkin: I must take up the right hon. Gentleman's point about an interim payment. I have refreshed my memory of the exchanges I had with his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North on Second Reading of the Bill. Both he, from the Government Dispatch Box, and I were careful not to describe the £10,000 as an interim payment. The right hon. Gentleman made care to look up the references.
A longer-term scheme of help for families with severely handicapped children, which was the Pearson recommendation, is something on which neither side has felt able to commit itself in the light of the resource implication. I am glad to have the assent of the righthon. Member for Norwich, North to that. If those on the Opposition Front Bench are saying that this should be introduced straight away, it is surprising that they left no provision to pay for it.

Child Benefit

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce an increase in the level of child benefit.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement about child benefits.

Mr. Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to announce an up rating of child benefit allowance.

Mrs. Chalker: An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

Mr. Rooker: Is it not clear from the Minister's answer that the value of child benefit willfall, and has now fallen, below the combined value of family allowances and tax allowances? What happened to the present Secretary of State's promise in July 1977 that child benefit would be treated in the same way as direct tax reductions? When will the Secretary of State and other Ministers at the DHSS stop operating as moles on behalf of the Treasury? It has been put to me by constituents and others that this Government now stand charged with an act of unparalleled electoral betrayal and social vandalism. They have been seen through.

Mrs. Chalker: The House has been made aware on a number of occasions that the Government considered that, with so many other competing claims last autumn, a general increase in benefit in November last year could not be justified. We fully appreciate the value of the child benefit, particularly for working families with children. But any uprating is expensive. An extra 10p costs about £60 million a year. The right time to increase the benefit is November when all social security benefits are uprated.

Mr. Bennett: What are the Government doing to reduce the poverty trap?

Mrs. Chalker: The Government intend to take all steps in relation to tax and benefits to make sure that work incentives are improved.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the hon. Lady go away and bow her head in shame and put on sackcloth and ashes for the way the Government have let down and cheated families? Is she aware that families are now worse off in relation to child benefit, which the Government side of the House welcomed and said they would support, than they were before child benefit with family allowance and income tax relief? Will the Government abandon their present position and agree now to an up rating in the child benefit allowance?

Mrs. Chalker: I do not intend to act in any strange clothes in this House. I must inform the hon. Gentleman that the value of child benefit at present is higher than at any time going back to 1971.

Mr. Paul Dean: While recognising the deplorably weak economy that the Government have inherited after many years of Labour rule, will my hon. Friend aim to review child benefit along with the other benefits at the annual review as soon as possible?

Mrs. Chalker: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. Of course.

Mr. Wigley: Does not the hon. Lady accept that many mothers are forced to go out to work because of the eroding of the value of child benefit? There are strong economic as well as social reasons for a substantial increase in child benefit so that these mothers can stay at home when they so desire.

Mrs. Chalker: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. But it is inflation that has eroded family income. We are well aware, therefore, that any inflation will hit benefits already in payment. I cannot accept, however, the hon. Gentleman's statement that women are being forced out to work. The child benefit, raised to £4 last April, and the child benefit increase of a further 50p in November, is obviously losing value because of the state of inflation. The Government's job is to get on top of inflation and to make sure that money retains its value.

Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Lady aware that her hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) said last Friday that his Government had cheated the pensioners? Today she is cheating the families. How do the Government intend to help millions of working families? Where has all the talk about incentives to work gone? Child benefit is a direct incentive to working families. This Government have let them down.

Mrs. Chalker: I cannot accept that this Government have cheated the family. We have been clear and honest from the beginning. If the country does not have the money to pay the benefits, we cannot pay the benefits. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that child benefit plays a most important part in family income and that it is crucial to restoring incentives. His words and mine on that score are in complete accord. They are being said day by day in the proper circles.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional measures he is proposing to assist registered disabled persons to withstand the increased cost of goods and services which are essential to aid their mobility.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Reg Prentice): Local social services authorities provide help with mobility to registered disabled persons and it is for individual authorities to determine, in the light of their own priorities, what help should be made available. As to assistance from the Department, the mobility allowance was increased by 20 per cent. last November and my right hon. Friend will be considering, before the end of the tax year, what the rate should be from November 1980.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the cost of living rise, which causes many problems for disabled people, will he consult his colleagues in the Treasury to see if the mobility allowance can be made non-taxable since it is an inevitable and unavoidable extra expense?

Mr. Prentice: The mobility allowance will be reviewed along the lines that I have suggested. It is unlikely to be made untaxable.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that disabled people will not be required to pay prescription charges, as some are doing at present? Will he give a categorical assurance that they will not pay any increased prescription charges?

Mr. Prentice: No, Sir. I can give no such assurance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a wide list of exemptions from payment of prescription charges.

Mr. Ashley: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's view is that they will not give further benefits to disabled people until the economy improves?

Mr. Prentice: There will be a review of benefits in November. As to the introduction of new benefits or the extension of the scope of existing benefits, the hon. Gentleman is right—such improvements must await an improvement in the economy.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the mobility allowance been fully phased in? If not, how many eligible people are still awaiting the allowance? Can the Minister say whether the increases in motoring costs will be taken fully into account in increasing the allowance in November?

Mr. Prentice: On the latter point, the increase in motoring costs will be one of the factors taken into account. I cannot say that it will be taken fully into account because the allowance was never envisaged as covering all the costs of mobility. It simply makes a contribution towards them. Those people between 60 and 65 have been phased in—more rapidly than planned by the previous Government. New claims are still being processed and the processing is not quite complete.

Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend consider whether some special help could be given to the war disabled from the First World War? Although they are not entitled to receive a mobility allowance as such, many of them cannot use motor cars and find it very difficult to get out. Does he not agree that some special help should be given to them as there are only 2,500 of them?

Mr. Prentice: As my hon. Friend will be aware, special allowances are payable to the war disabled. I think it is unlikely that an increase would be paid to the First World War disabled only. However, if my hon. Friend will contact me about this matter I shall look at it further.

Industrial Dispute (Supplementary Benefit Payments)

Mr. Brotherton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many strike centres have been set up to handle claims from steel workers on strike; where they are situated; and what is the total sum that has been paid to date.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the aggregate cost to public funds of supplementary benefits paid to those involved in the British Steel Corporation strike, and to their dependants, respectively, to date.

Mr. Prentice: Nineteen centres were set up to handle claims for supplementary benefit—mostly on behalf of dependants

—of striking employees of the British Steel Corporation. One Teesside centre has been closed and I will circulate in the Official Report, the list of areas in which the others are situated.
Up to the close of business on 22 January, the latest date for which figures are available, a total of about £790,000 had been paid, including £260 to strikers themselves.

Mr. Brotherton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has come to stop setting up these strike centres? Is it not time for the trade unions to bear the responsibilities of the strikes that they have brought about? Is it not wrong to make the taxpayer finance these strikes?

Mr. Prentice: I completely agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments. It is not for me to comment on the pace at which we shall implement our manifesto pledges in this respect, but it is deplorable that so much money is being spent in subsidising the strike. This is more so than usual because the two main steel unions and 11 out of the 13 smaller ones involved have decided not to pay a penny piece of strike pay.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not abusive that a union such as the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, which is sitting on a piggy bank of more than £11 million, is allowed to use that money to buy the services of gentlemen from the polytechnics to man the pickets, yet does not provide one penny piece to those whom it has called out on strike without any consultation? Will my right hon. Friend please see that our manifesto commitment is actuated as soon as possible?

Mr. Prentice: It is utterly deplorable that, on top of inflicting damage on the nation by the strike, the unions concerned should add insult to injury by expecting the taxpayers to subsidise the strike to the extent of the figures that I have announced. The House will have noticed that those figures are almost a week old. Therefore, by now certainly well over £1 million will have been paid out to strikers' families. That is money which should have been contributed by the unions themselves.

Mr. Freeson: Is the Minister aware that it is not necessary for him to seek


to outbid some of the contemptible sentiments from his own Back Benches with which he seems to think he must enthusiastically compete? Will he tell us the average payments per person? Will he also remind the House that, except for £260, all these thousands of pounds have been paid for the needs of women and children? Will he remind himself of the fact that these women and children are entitled in law to this money, that they have been so entitled for years, and that they shall continue to be so entitled?

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Member and his hon. Friends might ask themselves why the Transport and General Workers Union and the General and Municipal Workers Union are meeting their formal obligations and paying strike pay, whereas the two biggest unions involved in the steel strike and 11 out of the 13 smaller ones are not paying a penny piece.

Mr. Dykes: Is it not important to keep a sense of balance and proportion? Is it not true that, even if the unions paid strike money, there would be no guarantee, unfortunately, that the money would go to wives and families? Why should they be penalised?

Mr. Prentice: I agree that it is necessary to keep a sense of proportion. However, the conduct of the unions in this dispute, which is deplorable in general, is particularly deplorable in that they have not met the normal minimal obligations of unions for their own members and their members' families.

The following is the list:

Cumbria: Workington;

North-East: Consett, Hartlepool, and Teesside;

South Yorkshire: Rotherham, Sheffield (2);

North Lincolnshire: Scunthorpe (2);

East Midlands: Corby;

North Wales: Connah's Quay;

South Wales: Bridgend, Cwmbran, Ebbw Vale, Llanelli, Morriston, Neath, Newport.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

I shall also have a meeting with Signor Cossiga and later I shall give a dinner in his honour.

Mr. Dormand: When the Prime Minister sees her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will she discuss with him again the worsening problem of coking coal imports? Is she aware that 10,000 jobs are at stake here and that all we are talking about is a subsidy of £18 million after the National Coal Board has made its financial contribution? If the Prime Minister still resolutely refuses this subsidy from the Government, will she, as a matter of urgency, make an application to the EEC for that comparatively small sum, bearing in mind that those countries have received far greater subsidies.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member knows, a large amount of financing for the National Coal Board comes from what is called public money. In 1979–80 this will amount to £607 million. The Government certainly have no objection to some of that being used to subsidise coking coal.

Mr. Alexander: In the course of the day will my right hon. Friend consider the events in Birmingham last Sunday? Does she consider it right that the Sinn Fein should have been allowed to march there when a few yards away and only four years ago the IRA was responsible for the deaths of four people and the injury of 191 others on one day? If she does not find that acceptable, will she tell us what the Government intend to do about it?

The Prime Minister: Sinn Fein is not a proscribed organisation. Therefore, whether a march should be re-routed or allowed to be held at all is a matter in the first instance for the chief constable. If he decides that it should not be held, he must consult the Home Secretary. If he decides that the march should go ahead—as this one did—the decision, in the first instance, is for the chief constable; and that is as it should be.

Dr. Owen: In view of the fact that the latest figures available show that the Federal Republic of Germany subsidised the coking industry to the tune of £290 million and the NCB subsidises it only to the tune of about £10 million, how can the


Prime Minister justify not making an application to the EEC if she refuses to give Government money? The amount of a mere £l8 million would avoid a substantial number of redudancies and pit closures.

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard precisely what I said. This year the cash limit for external financing for the NCB is some £607 million overall. That is a great deal of money. On top of that there is external financing for steel, for British Rail and British Leyland. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would expect that the small amount for coking coal could have been provided out of that considerable sum.

Mr. Freud: While pursuing her busy schedule and rightly urging the Olympic athletes to boycott Moscow, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the situation of the English Chamber Orchestra under the patronage of Prince Charles, which is due to leave in five weeks on a British Council-sponsored tour of Moscow? The orchestra is looking to the Government for a directive on whether to go on this tour.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not necessarily issue directives; and quite rightly so. We tender advice. It is the responsibility of those who receive that advice to decide whether to take it. In general, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the advice is to cut off many political and cultural contacts for the time being as a way of making the protest that we can make against what has happened in Afghanistan.

Mr. George Gardiner: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in a sunday newspaper concerning a moderate shop steward in the steel industry who complained of violent intimidation of himself, his wife and his children? That intimidation occurred because he wanted a say in what was happening. Will my right hon. Friend look at the industrial relations legislation now before Parliament to make sure that it is strong enough to prevent that kind of thing?

The Prime Minister: Violent intimidation, or intimidation of any kind, must be totally and utterly condemned by everyone in this country. Violent intimidation can be dealt with by the criminal

law, but my hon. Friend knows that the difficulty is in getting evidence. There is not the slightest shadow of doubt that some people are frightened.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Prime Minister aware of the report published today that Mr. Poniatowski is proposing a nuclear force for Europe? If the Government are aware of it, what is their reaction to that proposal?

The Prime Minister: It is not the first time that our French allies have proposed that there should be a European nuclear deterrent. This is not a new suggestion. We discuss these matters from time to time and undoubtedly this proposal will be discussed in the future.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 29 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend now deplore the rabble-rousing partnership at work yesterday between Mr. Arthur Scargill and the deputy leader of the Labour Party, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".]—which aims to destroy respect for the rule of law and the rights of majorities within trade unions? Will the Prime Minister please assure the House that the Government's industrial legislation proposals will provide adequate protection against violent picketing, blacking and intimidation?

The Prime Minister: I believe that the vast majority of trade unionists—almost all of them—would agree that the law must be upheld. I am glad that a vast majority in the House believes that the law must be upheld and I am glad that the president and the general secretary of the ISTC also took that view. There would be no civilisation unless the law were upheld. My hon. Friend will recollect, in relation to the provisions in the Employment Bill, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment indicated that he would consider, when we knew the decision on the McShane case, whether further provisions should be brought forward in Committee


He is actively considering that. However, it would seem that the law is far from clear.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Prime Minister consider telling her hon. Friends who sit behind her that if they would stop making their hyena-like remarks we might be able to get the strike settled?

The Prime Minister: It is rather significant that the hon. Gentleman refers to upholding the law in that way. We do not.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most local authorities have complied with the wishes of the Cabinet on public expenditure cuts? If there are to be further cuts, the local authorities would wish central Govenment to indicate which services should be finished.

The Prime Minister: Examples of waste within many services are noted almost daily by the newspapers. If one looks at the enormous number of people employed by local authorities and the way in which that number has steadily increased, one can but reach the conclusion that there is considerable scope for further economies in administration.

Mr. John Morris: How long does the Prime Minister intend to maintain the Government's posture of non-intervention in the steel strike? Is she aware of bitter criticism today of the Government's proposal for the rundown of BSC as regards numbers, speed and the fact that no application has been made to the EEC for aid? Will she publish a White Paper on her negotiations on this matter with the EEC and her responses to the criticisms that are being ventilated?

The Prime Minister: I heard on the early morning news the criticisms made by Commissioner Vredeling. He seemed to indicate that we had not applied for aid from Europe. However, since 1973 there have been 100 such applications. On 12 December the Department of Industry informed Commission officials of BSC's proposals for redundancies in 1980 and 1981. The Commission decided that £7·7 million should be allocated to Shotton and that allocation was signed by Commissioner Vredeling.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the increase in the

United States defence budget? Will she consider whether we could increase our defence spending by more than the 4 per cent. that may be possible? Perhaps it could be increased to 10 per cent?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that we can go beyond the pledges we have already given. If we manage to get expansion in the economy and earnings and productivity go up, we could do a great deal more in many areas. I am not prepared to commit extra expenditure until we have got extra earnings.

Oral Answers to Questions — DRONGAN

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Drongan.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Foulkes: If the Prime Minister visits Drongan will she compare the excellent local authority sheltered housing there with the old people's homes highlighted recently in The Sunday Times? Will she ask the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Attorney-General to look into the laws governing old people's homes and the case of Olive St. Barbe in particular?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to report that many of us have excellent sheltered housing and old peoples' homes in our constituencies. When we once again have economic expansion we will be able to provide more of them. If the hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind I am sure that he will refer them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR SECURITY

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her latest discussions with Mr. van Agt, Prime Minister of Holland, on security at the joint conference project at URENCO, Almelo, Holland.

The Prime Minister: I have not spoken to Mr. van Agt since our meeting on 6 December 1979, when I made my concern about the Khan affair very clear to him. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 17 January, we remain in close touch with the


Netherlands and German Governments through diplomatic channels and the URENCO joint committee to ensure that all the necessary action to prevent a repetition is being taken.

Mr. Dalyell: Has there yet been a complete and candid explanation by the Dutch as to why, for four long years, their British and German partners were not told about a major security leak to Pakistan?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a report of which we have received a confidential copy. I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter and I wish to make it quite clear that we are every bit as concerned as he is. It was an appalling breach of security which can have very far-reaching consequences. All our efforts at the moment are strained to see that there is no repetition of that incident.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Since Pakistan deceived the British Government into sending it inverters for a nuclear weapon plant under the pretence that they were for a textile mill—I was personally involved in bringing this to the attention of the House—is it right to send arms to Pakistan?

The Prime Minister: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that the two issues are exactly related. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary made our views very clear to the Pakistan Government. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Pakistan has not signed the non-proliferation agreement, which is a matter of great concern to us. We tried to secure undertakings from the Government of Pakistan that they would not transfer any nuclear technology anywhere else.
The selling of arms to Pakistan is a different matter, especially as Pakistan is right in the front line now.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORRIGENDUM

In the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. Allaun:

In line 5, after "views", insert "on the nuclear aspect of the question".

In line 9, for "tried" read "therefore do try".

[See also cols. 1578–80.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. SPEAKER (PERSONAL STATEMENT)

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall make a brief personal statement. Those who were in the Chamber earlier this afternoon will know that right hon. and hon. Members were kind enough to give me birthday greetings. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I really was not asking for more. In view of the article in The Times today, it is in the interests of the House for me to make a brief statement to end speculation about my intentions for the future.
It is but eight months since the House did me the honour of electing me Mr. Speaker for the life of this Parliament. That is a trust that I hope to fulfil. I do not wish to tempt providence, but I am feeling as fit as when I assumed the Chair. Therefore, it is my intention to continue to serve the House for this Parliament as it invited me to do eight month ago. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

SCUNTHORPE STEEL STRIKE COMMITTEE (LETTER)

Mr. Michael Brown: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the consequences of a circular letter sent by the Scunthorpe Steel Strike Committee to steel workers who are reluctant to give their support to the steel strike by picketing.
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for being unable to give you notice before 12 noon. Unfortunately, the document that is the subject of my application was not in my hands until the lunch-time period.
The letter states:
This fight will only be won with you and every member doing their duty, by reporting to our strike centre, and being prepared to assist by doing a turn on picket duties. This fight will be over one day, and we would not want any unpleasantness after we have won, by some people being accused of not pulling their weight.
The letter contains threats which, though unspecified, are a clear attempt to intimidate.
Following the recent judgment by Lord Denning, in the Court of Appeal,


steel workers by that letter are being told in a most dictatorial, undemocratic and tyrranical manner to commit acts that may be unlawful. Whether the acts are lawful or whether they are not, it is intolerable that many of my constituents should live in fear and dread of union bully boys who have been unsuccessful in obtaining the support of steel workers who are on strike against their will. For these tyrants to make threats implying the possible loss of ISTC union cards and, by implication, the jobs of those opposed to the strike, is an unacceptable intrusion and intimidation of many of my constituents that should be discussed in the House at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) gave me notice as soon as he received the letter to which he has referred that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the consequences of a circular letter sent by the Scunthorpe Steel Strike Committee to steel workers who are reluctant to give their support to the steel strike by picketing.
I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman's argument. I read with care the letter that he delivered to me during the lunch hour.
As the House knows, I am directed by Standing Order No. 9 to take account of the several factors set out in the order—there are many factors involved in this issue—but to give no reason for my decision.
I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS

Mr. George Robertson: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the better safety of children in cars by prohibiting the carriage of children under thirteen years of age in the front seat of motorcars, to provide for the appropriate fitments for seat belts in rear seats of all new cars and for the fitment of rear seat child safety seats in a proportion of all hire-drive cars.

In moving this brief Bill, I am repeating the attempt that was made last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to draw attention to the appalling and yet avoidable loss of life on the roads of Britain.
More than 20 people every day die in road accidents and over 200 receive serious injury. These are statistics in which my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby and I have both figured, and which should shock and horrify us all.
Road casualties are not all avoidable, and in the motorised society of today there are inevitable risks. However, Parliament could do much to reduce the widespread carnage—the daily maiming, killing and crippling—that now scarcely merits a headline in the press. Our delay in making seat belt wearing compulsory, our reluctance to tighten design safety regulations for vehicles, and our perverse resistance to the tachograph in lorries display our unwillingness to deal positively with a major and escalating national scandal.
However, that which converts our lethargic indifference into the inexcusable are child accidents. Each year 10,000 children under 15 years of age are injured in cars, and 83 of them die. Millions more of them every day are carried completely unrestrained, in cars designed for the safety of adults. All of them are carried at enormous yet avoidable risk.
Of the 83 children who died in cars in 1977, 25 were being carried in the front passenger seat. Of the 9,000 children who were injured, 2,280 were in the front passenger seat—the real and well-named "killer" seat. Most of these injuries are avoidable and, therefore, inexcusable, and these children are the innocent victims of our collective inaction.
The 10,000 children who each year are killed, maimed, crippled or mutilated cannot themselves judge that the risk of travelling in the front seat is three times as great as that of travelling in the back seat. They cannot measure the merits or benefits of the safety of a restraint or the danger of being loose in a collision.
These children, whose lives and limbs are shattered, do not design cars, which have eye-level fascias for adults, which are safe and cushioned, yet retain sharp, hostile protruding edges at a child's level. They do not make laws, which could


make the fitment of rear seat restraints obligatory, or could force manufacturers to provide the anchorage points for them in family cars.
Young children do not make the decision to sit on an adult's lap in the front seat. However, they are the ones who will be torn, with enormous force, from the adult's arms and hurled against the dashboard or windscreen, often at the expense of their lives. They do not know, but their parents should, that a 30 lb. child in a collison at only 20 mph will weigh up to a quarter of a ton, and that, at best, the adult, by acting as a battering ram, will be saved injury by crushing the child, often to death.
It is Parliament that could, and should, act on the decision of the 18 nations at the 1975 European conference of Transport Ministers that
children be carried at the rear of the car if they are too young or too small to use the seats belts or if there are no special safety devices for them.
It is within our power to act on the evidence that a child in the front seat is three times more at risk than one in the rear, and that a restrained child is the safest of all.
It is within our power and our responsibility to recognise that we have a duty to protect the helpless children in road accidents from the potentially lethal

manner in which they are carried in cars. It is long beyond the time to say that where technology or legislation, or both can do something to stop this destruction of young life and of young potential, we have a moral commitment to act.
The Bill is a modest but self-evidently important step in the campaign to save human life. I hope that the House will support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. George Robertson, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Roger Moate, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Barry Sheerman, Mr. Albert McQuarrie and Mr. K. J. Woolmer.

SAFETY OF CHILDREN IN CARS

Mr. George Robertson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the better safety of children in cars by prohibiting the carriage of children under thirteen years of age in the front seat of motor cars, to provide for the appropriate fitments for seat belts in rear seats of all new cars and for the fitment of rear seat child safety seats in a proportion of all hire-drive cars: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 February and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered.

Orders of the Day — GAS PRICES

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) I remind the House that this is expected to be a short debate. I believe that it is the intention that it should finish at as near 7 o'clock as possible. There are four Front Bench speakers in the short debate. Therefore, I hope that both they and the rest of the House will realise that whoever is in the Chair can call hon. Members to speak only if those who are fortunate bear their colleagues in mind.

Dr. David Owen: I beg to move.
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government's savage increase in gas prices over the next three years which will hit ordinary families and have a devastating effect upon the cost of living; and calls for a comprehensive scheme to protect the most vulnerable sections of the community from the inflationary effects of high fuel prices.
A year ago inflation in Britain was running at 8 per cent. It is currently running at over 17 per cent. By the spring it will be over 20 per cent. Of the current 17 per cent. inflation, 8½ per cent. has been induced by specific decisions of Conservative Members; value added tax accounts for 3¾ per cent.: reduced local authority grants, 1 per cent.; reduced support for nationalised industries, ¾per cent.; higher national insurance contributions, ½ per cent.; green pound devaluation, ¾ per cent.; and increased interest in mortgage rates, l¾ per cent.
Can anyone who voted for the Conservative Party have really believed that in less than a year it would have brought to this country 8½ per cent. inflation—double the rate that it was a year ago?
The central core of our indictment of Conservative Members is their callous disregard for the consequences of inflation on most families. They have acted in a way that has gravely prejudiced the competitiveness of British industry and

weakened our already weak industrial base.
We have now a further¼ per cent. on gas prices alone, and ½ per cent. on all fuels, to take effect from April. What is worse, the Government have committed themselves to a formula of 10 percent. over and above inflation, not only this year but next year and the year beyond. That is not a drip, drip, but a torrent of inflationary action from the Government that is putting our rate well above the 12 per cent. average for OECD countries.
Britain cannot continue with such inflationary rates. Domestic fuel bills, on average, will rise next year by £28. For the two winter quarters it will be near to £20. That is a large amount to find from family budgets that are already under great strain.
The Secretary of State may claim in his defence that oil prices are rising, that international energy prices are rising, and that we are now receiving about 50 per cent. of our gas from the Northern basin, which costs much more than the gas from the Southern basin. The right hon. Gentleman may stress that the Price Commission advocated a phased increase. On all that we agree. He may point also to the need to invest in more gas gathering pipelines if we are to avoid the scandalous position of burning up gas in the North Sea. At times we have been burning as much as one-third of our domestic gas consumption. I would wish to see greater exploitation of the gas that I believe exists, but is yet undiscovered, in the North Sea. We need to build up reserves for the eventual switch to synthetic gas.
On all these matters there is agreement. However, the matters are known to the British Gas Corporation. They are better known to the corporation than they are to Conservative Members. What we have to ask is why the British Gas Corporation, knowing full well that these increases were to be made, and taking them into account with its commercial interests, does not agree that gas prices should rise by the amount stated for the years 1981–82 and 1982–83.
The only reason why it shows a broad measure of agreement with the 29 per cent. increase this year is that the Government, especially the Prime Minister, vetoed any price increases last summer. The reason why we are facing such


substantial increases is that Conservative Members refused to increase prices last year.

Mr. Tony Marlow: rose—

Dr. Owen: I shall not give way. It is no use Conservative Members complaining. If they wished to phase the price increase they could have raised prices a little last year and a little more this year. The central core of the argument is the rate of these increases, the effect on inflation and the effect on families.
The other argument that has been used is the link between gas prices and oil prices. That is an extremely dangerous argument. OPEC countries have a vested interest—

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman has made a grave accusation. He claimed that Conservative Members were frightened of raising domestic gas prices. Will he tell us what happened to domestic gas prices when his Government were in power and what they did to hold down domestic gas prices against the commercial interests of Britain?

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand he attacks us for showing enough courage to hold down gas prices and then becomes upset when I say that the right hon. Lady made a great principle of not raising gas prices in the summer of last year. She is now raising gas prices against the commercial judgment of the British Gas Corporation.
It is an extraordinary position. My right hon. and hon. Friends are not slaves to market forces. Conservative hon. Members spend their time demanding that we should accept commercial judgments. The OPEC countries have a vested interest in ensuring that the price of gas, which it currently does little about other than burn, rises to meet oil prices.
It is not in the interests of this country, or in the interests of Western Europe or anyone in the world, that gas prices should follow oil prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because one of the great virtues of gas is that it comes from a much wider range of countries than the OPEC countries. The largest supplies that are currently being marketed do not come from OPEC countries. Algeria is a large source, but the Netherlands is the

largest exporter. Considerable amounts of gas also come from Thailand, the ASEAN countries, and North America. If we want to keep down world energy prices, there is a great deal to be said for trying to keep gas prices below oil prices.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Dr. Owen: If hon. Members want all energy prices to go up, they are setting a most extraordinary example. What I am warning—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that it is now clear that the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Dr. Owen: We understand the sensitivity of Conservative Members on this issue, but if they are arguing that gas prices should be encouraged to follow oil prices, it is a very strange argument. What I am saying is that if one can possibly keep a distinction—

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of what the chairman of the British Gas Corporation said in a letter to me on 2 August 1979? It was:
The practice of market relating to the nearest alternative fuel was established right at the beginning of natural gas marketing as a means of ensuring the best use is made of the premium quantities of this natural resource.
The chairman did not, of course, relate his remarks to gas and oil.

Dr. Owen: There is a relationship with regard to industrial use, where there is an immediate transfer and flexibility between the two. That linkage has been established for some time. It has not been established in the domestic market, and the Secretary of State knows that. Is he now trying to establish the same linkage between oil and gas in the domestic market that has hitherto existed in the industrial market? If that is the case it will mean much greater increased gas prices than the increase that has been currently produced by the Government.
Industry and all of us are already suffering seriously from a very high exchange rate, put up by the fact that we have a petro-currency. If it must also accept the highest energy prices that operate in the world, our industry, which is


already experiencing great difficulty against the exchange rate, will have a particularly difficult time. Conservative Members will have to face the fact that it is not in our interests to tie domestic gas prices to oil prices. Of course, gas prices must bear some relationship, because they cannot be divorced totally—[Hon. Members. "Oh."]—Of course, because that is an inevitable fact of life. What we are talking about is the savage rate of increase. The Secretary of State will also have to consider the question of conservation. As one of the prime reasons for increasing gas prices, the right hon. Gentleman has suggested that this was necessary because if the price were too low we should burn it up too fast and bring forward the day when we would have to turn to more expensive sources of supply.
Where in the Gas Act 1972 is the legislative authority for such an argument for increasing gas prices? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain that to the House. Under sections 2 and 14 of the Act, it is the corporation's duty in respect of pricing that, taking one year with another, it should charge prices that enable it to meet its outgoings and to make such allocations to reserve as it thinks adequate. Presumably, the word "adequate", means adequate for the purpose of performing the corporation's statutory responsibility to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economic system of gas supply and to satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas—not for any other purpose.
It seems that the new policy is to use higher pricing to deter people from entering, or remaining in, the market for gas. I have been able to discover no power under the Gas Act for the corporation to secure revenue or build up reserves for the purpose of stopping people from using gas, and still less to encourage them to use other sources of energy. I find it difficult to understand how it is consistent with that policy for the corporation to satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas in Great Britain.

Mr. Peter Viggers: The right hon. Gentleman has advanced the argument that the Government should not

control gas prices for any reason other than those inherent in the Gas Act itself. Is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon), who was a Minister in the Labour Government, said in 1977, when he increased gas prices:
We were aware of these considerations, but an increase in gas prices was necessary to reduce the level of Government financing."—[Official Report, 17 March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 251.]
Is that what the right hon. Gentleman wants?

Dr. Owen: That is quite a different reason. Under section 15 of the Gas Act it is arguable that the Government of the day were using the powers of discretionary decision that are open to the Secretary of State. Had Conservative Members wished to challenge that at the time, no doubt they would have done so, but my argument relates to a quite new issue. If the Government wish to use rationing by price as grounds for a gas increase, it is my submission that that authority is not contained in the Gas Act. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he consulted the Attorney-General about the reasons for raising gas prices. It may well be that one of the consumer councils will wish to challenge the validity of this policy.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Dr. Owen: No, I shall not give way. Our main criticism of the Government relates to their overall argument about conservation. They underestimate the importance of gas on conservation grounds. It is a far better way of heating homes than electricity, where about 70per cent. of the energy goes up the chimney in waste. It is much easier to use the supply lines for gas heating to domestic homes. It is much easier for the industry to diversify into coal. By using price as a means of conservation, the Government must face the fact that they are selectively hitting those people who have no other option, such as young families who must keep the house warm for 24 hours a day and the housebound, disabled or elderly who also have heating bills in respect of a 24-hour period. It is for that reason that we find that families on low incomes, or families with young children, spend a


much higher proportion of their income on fuel bills. It is they who will be most savagely hit.
Furthermore, it seems to be envisaged that the tariff will hit prepayment customers hardest. There is already a differential, and it is suggested that it should be increased. That again will affect the poorest. If conservation is the key factor, it would be better for the Secretary of State to consider a peak load tariff—which was suggested by the Price Commission or even an inverted tariff, where the average price increases with usage after an initial basic allowance. There are difficulties in that respect, but that at least would encourage conservation and not penalise basic users.
If the right hon. Gentleman is to be taken seriously, and if conservation is the key factor for a price increase, we have the right to ask why he has not increased the £50 allowance for roof and loft insulation. Why has he cut back on the "Save It" campaign budget? Why has he scrapped a pilot project for centres to advise on home insulation? Why is it intended to stop the £25 million scheme to help industry and businesses insulate buildings and improve their boilers? Why is it intended—effectively, it has already occurred—to cut back on the STEP programme to insulate old people's houses and to help them to obtain grants?
The right hon. Gentleman would carry more conviction on conservation grounds had he acted more to promote conservation. It is not just a question of words. For some time now we have urged specific measures on the Government, which they have consistently rejected. It would have carried more conviction in the country had some of the substantial increases in profit that will occur as a result of these decisions been diverted into genuine measures to help conservation.
But the real question that we must face is the impact that this will have on poor families. Council tenants increasingly use gas. In 1978, more than 80 per cent. of all new council houses had gas installed in them.
The supplementary benefits inspectorate has estimated that 60 per cent. of pensioners receiving supplementary benefits under heat their homes. Half the

people who run fuel debts are pensioners; the other half are mainly single-parent families. It is difficult to assess the full extent of hypothermia, because it is rarely recorded as the sole cause of death. Obviously, winter death rates can be influenced by many factors, and cold must be one. Over the last 10 years the death rate in winter has been 17 per cent. higher for people aged 60 to 69, 20 per cent. higher for people in their 70s, and 25 per cent. higher for people over 80. For infants aged between 12 weeks and four months, the winter death rate is 40 per cent. higher than the summer rate. It is difficult to believe that cold is not playing a part in those figures for people who would normally be confined to their homes in winter.
We are told that the Government have a review in hand to examine ways of helping poor families. That is a bit rich from a Government who last year made a central public expenditure cut of between £20 million and £30 million, at the expense of electricity users, by scrapping the electricity discount scheme. A new fuel scheme is urgently needed. The Secretary of State for Social Services says that there is nothing in our proposal. I can suggest a scheme that he should introduce. He knows as well as I do that if he is to introduce it a decision to do so must be made in the next few months. The right hon. Gentleman will claim that no allocation was made for the electricity discount scheme. That is the great defence of the Conservative Party. The electricity discount scheme was already operating.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): The right hon. Gentleman repeats his canard that the Government cut spending on the electricity discount scheme. With the greatest respect, one cannot cut something that is not there. There was no provision in the estimates by the previous Labour Government. We introduced a new and better scheme, at a cost of £16½ million a year.

Dr. Owen: The electricity discount scheme was always decided on by the Cabinet, as an overall decision, to try to relieve poverty. It has not been borne specifically by the social security budget. One of the reasons for that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that it was


felt that there should be a contribution to help with fuel, not simply from the social security budget but from the Department of Energy and other Departments. That scheme would have continued, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
We were aware that there was a strong case for a comprehensive scheme, not simply to cover electricity. The Government must now introduce for next winter a comprehensive scheme that will cover not only electricity and gas but coal, paraffin and oil. It must be implemented by next winter, and therefore a decision must be taken by the summer, at the latest. The scheme should be simple to administer and, given the time restraints under which we are currently operating, keep the existing heating allowances and use the categories covered by existing schemes. It should be a scheme that could develop further into a proper comprehensive fuel benefit.

Mr. David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is now virtually impossible for hon. Members to collect information from the DHSS about the number of people who are likely to benefit from the Government scheme—for example, the number of pensioners over the age of 75? It seems that instructions have been given by the Secretary of State for such information not to be given to hon. Members. What is the Government's reason for covering up? Is it not clear that the reason why they are refusing to give information is that many people whom the Government claim are entitled to benefit will not receive it?

Dr. Owen: Sadly, there is likely to be a low take-up. Whereas, previously, over 3 million people were benefiting, even on the Government's estimates, only 350,000 people would benefit from the new scheme.
A comprehensive scheme must cover not only those people who receive supplementary benefits. If the scheme were confined solely to people receiving supplementary benefit, as a recent survey by the economic advisers to the DHSS has shown, it would miss 60 per cent. of the people in greatest need. The scheme must cover the working poor, the low-income wage earner with a large family, the poor elderly who are just outside

supplementary benefit levels, couples with small occupational pensions, and the disabled. The scheme must give an entitlement to anyone claiming a rent or rate rebate, people receiving invalidity benefits, as well as people on supplementary benefits and family income supplement. The cost of the scheme cannot start at less than £100 million, and it should be a good deal more than that.
The logic of the right hon. Gentleman is that if he is to increase energy prices, part of the profit that will accrue to those industries must be turned back to finance a comprehensive scheme to help people in need. It must cover the two winter quarters and be paid either in cash, or, if there are objections to cash payments, through fuel stamps, provided that fuel stamps are available for all energy consumers. That method of saving and budgeting for fuel bills is advocated by the Gas and Electricity Consumer Councils. That is the only way in which to salvage the wreckage caused by the right hon. Gentleman's insensitivity and callous disregard for the consequences of his decision, which takes effect in April. Its worst consequences will come in the winter of next year. The House will judge the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative Party savagely if all they produce for next winter is a small addition to the already mean-minded scheme produced by the Secretary of State for Social Services.
Our indictment of the Government is that they are savagely increasing inflation, and seem not to care what happens.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? Are the Opposition in favour of a gas price increase? If so, by how much?

Dr. Owen: All my remarks have indicated that there will have to be a gas price increase. I have not shirked that in anything that I have said. My criticism is of the rate and pace at which it is being increased. The Price Commission recommended that if there were to be a gas price increase it should be phased. I believe that a 29 per cent. increase, at a time when inflation is spiralling upwards to 17 per cent., is too high. At the very least, the increase should have been at the current rate of inflation.
It is no use Conservative Members salvaging their consciences by voting


against the motion tonight and somehow thinking that they are clothing themselves with realistic virtue in voting for some increase, because Labour Members are not facing up to the need for any increase. That is not the case. We recognise that there is a need for an increase. Our indictment is of the savage and callous nature of the increase. It does not simply cover the current year. Conservative Members are committing themselves to inflationary increases for next year and the year after. They are building in inflation-plus on fuel prices. They have acted against the commercial judgment of the British Gas Corporation. The corporation does not think very much of the phasing.
The Government are intervening in an industry at a time when Minister after Minister states that the Government cannot interfere in the dispute at the BSC, and that their stance is one of non-intervention. They make a virtue of non-intervention over steel, and serve their own ends over gas. The Government have introduced what the Financial Times has called a disguised tax. They have introduced it on grounds of conservation, which are very doubtful legal grounds. In effect, they are using the price increase as a way of taxing gas consumers. It is unfair and retrogressive. They have failed to introduce a comprehensive scheme to help those people least able to cope with ever-increasing fuel bills. They have shown a total insensitivity to the feelings and fears of the 14 million gas consumers.
The Secretary of State's reputation, which has already slumped—by 29 per cent. according to some Tory newspapers—deserves to slump a good deal further tonight. Are Conservative Members prepared to vote for their intentions? We have heard that the Tory Party is extremely annoyed by the Secretary of State's decision. Many Conservative Members who are concerned about the poor are worried about the absence of any new scheme, and the hard-faced market people are upset at the intervention in market forces.
Tonight will reveal the true extent to which the Tory Party really cares. I suggest to Conservative Members that if they cannot join us in the Lobbies they should at least abstain.
The Secretary of State for Energy has made a dangerous decision. He has

fuelled inflation and he has undoubtedly introduced a scheme that will cause very great hardship. It is the duty of this House to reject his decision tonight.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
recognises the inevitable need for domestic gas prices to rise, bearing in mind that no profit is now made on domestic gas sales, while industry goes short of gas; welcomes the Government's determination not to evade or disguise economic realities; and believes that the Government's stated intention to review the whole range of fuel assistance offers much the best basis for helping the old and those in need in an era of high energy costs".
I ask the House to reject the motion proposed by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). He has made his case—except perhaps at the end—in very fair terms. He has put forward his feelings on this matter and expressed his concern about an era of high energy costs. His whole tone was somewhat different from the slightly hysterical note struck by the motion. I am glad to be able to offer the House the opportunity to discuss a key aspect of the nation's energy supplies.
I do not disguise for one moment that the decisions that I announced the other day, setting three-year financial targets for the gas and electricity industries, were unpleasant and difficult. They were decisions that had been shirked for a long time and were thus all the more difficult to make, but in the Government's view they were decisions that could be shirked no longer.
I shall deal immediately with the question of legal powers, which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The chairman of the Gas Corporation has informed me that the corporation will implement the target set by the Government. It regards its acceptance of the target as consistent with its obligations under section 14 of the Gas Act 1972. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman reads section 14 (b), he will see that it requires the corporation to set aside reserves.
as may be necessary to comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State under section 15 below.


As the British Gas Corporation has agreed to implement these targets, no question of legislative direction or power arises. The British Gas Corporation has accepted these targets and intends to implement them. That is consistent with its legal obligations, and that is what it will do.
When the right hon. Gentleman talks about such matters, I have to suggest to him that his memory is a little short. Surely he recalls that, for instance, in March 1977 his right hon. Friend, my predecessor, slapped an increase on domestic gas prices, exclusively to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. That may have been right. It was done without any energy policy need or justification at all, although there was some muttering at the time about conservation. It was done without proper consultation with the British Gas Corporation, and it was in defiance of the previous Government's own beloved Price Commission. The then Secretary of State may have been right to do it, but I do not recall that there was then any dancing up and down about powers. The truth is that the British Gas Corporation is well within its powers in pursuing these financial targets, which it has accepted.
The emphasis today in our debate is on gas. The first tariff increases implied by the three-year target are to be brought in on 1 April, and my announcement in the House was necessary in mid-January in order to give the corporation time in which to complete its consultations with its consumer councils and to publish the tariff proposals. There have this time been proper consultations.
My statement looks forward over three years. I can see the point behind some of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Devonport. There would have been attractions in announcing a single-year target, taking cover behind a one-year figure, and saying nothing about local price increases in later years. That is what the previous Government did for the current year, in December 1978; indeed, they released the news of the one-year target on Christmas Eve in a press release, despite having published earlier that year their White Paper on the nationalised industries, which was full of high-minded virtue, advocating the set-

ting of targets for three to five years. But when it came to doing the difficult thing they ducked the issue.
If, as I shall argue shortly, it is now essential for domestic gas prices to increase by at least 30 per cent. in real terms, it would have been dishonest not to give consumers full warning. In fact, much of the strong feeling that we have heard about what we have had to save on gas prices arises precisely because people who banked on gas staying cheap were not told by previous Governments what they should have been told, namely, that prices would have to rise substantially in the years ahead. People felt misled. The Government believe that in this area, as in many others, it is time for the misleading to stop.
Let me explain to the House the thinking that underlies the Government's view. The real price of domestic gas has fallen by more than one-third over the past 10years—and this against the background of energy prices rising in real terms. Last year crude oil prices rose by 100 per cent. or more. In contrast, the price of domestic gas went up by only 8 per cent. in June, after more than two years with no increase at all.
Hon. Members may recall what happened when the British Gas Corporation submitted its proposed 8 per cent. increase to the then Price Commission. Not only did that commission allow the increase in full; it said that prices should be 30 to 35 per cent. higher still, even after the 8 per cent. increase was implemented. The Price Commission, as far as I recall, was not in the business of urging price increases unnecessarily, and since that time—the report was made last July—the costs for new gas have soared further.
That is the position on the gas side. Turning from gas to the crucial question of supply and demand, we find that British Gas sells gas to industry at prices broadly related to those of the competing oil products. It must follow that policy. At one stage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech I thought that he was arguing for that, although he seemed to veer away from it. This is the only way in which to match supply and demand, since much of industry can switch quite easily between gas and oil.
The corporation's market-related pricing policy, as was emphasised in an


intervention, is long established and has been endorsed by successive Governments. Industry is now renewing contracts for firm supplies at about 24p per therm—a price that is bound to increase substantially in the light of recent oil price increases. Indeed, entirely new contracts are already fetching over 28p per therm. In contrast, the current average revenue per therm from the domestic market is less than 20p, which is well below the industrial trade price, despite the fact that the costs of supplying smaller users are significantly higher than those for bulk quantities.
That is the position. The relative prices for industrial and domestic users are topsy-turvy, and industry has rightly been complaining. The profitability of British Gas sales to the two markets reflects this position. About half of the gas sold goes to domestic consumers and the other half goes to industry. In the past about half the profits came from each market, but in the current financial year, ending on 1 April, domestic sales will barely break even; in fact, without the forthcoming price increases—and I am not at all sure from the right hon. Gentleman's speech whether he is for them or against them—they would make a loss. It would have been a question of subsidised fuel. It will not be until towards the end of the three-year target period that the domestic market will again be making a reasonable contribution.
The key factor underlying this market approach to pricing policy is that gas is an increasingly valuable resource. As we run down our reserves of gas from the old low-cost fields—and already nearly half of these have been used up—we shall, as I have indicated, have to replace them with higher cost supplies from deeper, more distant, northern waters and with further imports from Norway in addition to those that we import already, or perhaps from elsewhere, either in liquid natural gas form or in some other form. Indeed, some hon. Members may have seen recent press reports that the Algerians are seeking to double the price of the gas that they sell.
Although gas sells under different terms from oil and is generally cheaper to produce, it is bound to be dragged upwards by the world oil price explosion. We cannot insulate ourselves from that in

reaching decisions on gas pricing policy. I found it difficult to follow the view of the right hon. Member for Devonport that somehow we could wish away the increasing pressure in the world for gas prices to be related to oil prices. That is what those who sell gas to other countries seek to do. That is the reality which we must meet.

Dr. Owen: The Secretary of State does not have to tie domestic gas prices in Britain to oil prices. Britain is self-sufficient in energy. Britain has substantial indigenous gas reserves and does not have to price its gas at the same level as Dutch gas or LNG from OPEC countries. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. That is an option that is open to a British Government to enable them to keep prices down, and wherever they can they should keep gas prices below oil prices.

Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentleman is confusing production costs, which is what I was talking about, with supply and demand. The facts cannot be blinked away. On the production side, nations which sell gas, whether as liquefied natural gas or as directly piped dry gas, are seeking to relate the price of the gas to the price of oil.
As regards supply and demand, I think that the right hon. Gentleman recognised earlier—though he was ambiguous on this—that the policy of relating the price of gas sold to industrial customers to oil was long recognised and correct. All that the Government have proposed in their financial targets is that domestic price gas prices should move some of the way towards the market-determined level. There is no question of the price of gas moving all the way under our proposed financial targets, yet the right hon. Gentleman appears to be excited about those targets and has denounced them as savage. He cannot have it both ways, although he is trying hard to do so.
I turn now to the setting of the financial targets for British Gas and the claim of the right hon. Gentleman and others that by setting financial targets for three years we are interfering in some way with free market prices. It is true that the setting of any financial target, whether for the steel industry or the Gas Corporation as a public utility, is an attempt to provide some of the disciplines of market


forces. Were there a completely free and competitive market for the supply of gas in the United Kingdom, prices would already have risen above the level now proposed for three years' time.
British Gas is fully agreed on the objective of economic pricing. It has agreed to implement the financial targets. It has agreed the price increases proposed for this year, but I believe that I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he did not agree. Therefore, had the right hon. Gentleman been in my place, presumably he would have overruled British Gas.
Though British Gas wanted to go slower in later years, the Government have to take account of the need to conserve and to delay the dangerous day—the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Foreign Secretary, must know of the dangers—when we have to rely once more on far more expensive gas and politically less reliable supplies.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Can the Secretary of State tell us precisely what the British Gas Corporation told him with regard to the later years? Just how much slower does the corporation want to go?

Mr. Howell: When I discussed the financial targets with the corporation, it said that it would like the objective to be achieved but paced out over a greater number of years. That is exactly what I have just told the House. The corporation wanted to go slower in later years. I was given no precise figures.
What I have said should emphasise that the Government are not in any way artificially pushing up prices. What we are doing is to phase out some of the restraints on artificially low domestic gas price levels, allowing them to rise to something closer to their true market value. That is less intervention than in the past, not more. Those who argue the other way round have got the matter precisely 180 degrees wrong.

Mr. Tim Renton: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, doubtless he will remember that the Select Committee on nationalised indusries in the previous Parliament, with a Labour chairman and a Labour majority, recommended that all nationalised indus-

tries should be set financial targets for three to five years by the Government. My right hon. Friend will also recall that British Gas, in its last report, regretted that the Labour Government had not set a three- to five-year target for the corporation. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the new target is based on replacement cost of capital employed rather than on the historical cost?

Mr. Howell: Yes, I can confirm that. I can confirm also that this is a move to set three-year financial targets which were consistently ducked by the previous Government. A great many people regretted many things under the previous Government, and this was one of them.
Quite apart from the long-term importance of conserving scarce resources, the British Gas Corporation also needs to use the price mechanism in the short term to help match demand to available gas supplies. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of the price mechanism or against it, but if he says that what we are doing is rationing by price, my answer is that his approach would be rationing by rationing.

Mr. Dick Douglas: What estimates have the Government and the corporation made of the reduction in demand for its product, or the rate of decrease or increase in demand for its product?

Mr. Howell: If the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) will allow me, I shall come to that in a moment. I was about to refer to the surge in demand and the effects, as far as can be estimated, that the financial targets will have, but I shall come to those in detail in a moment.
Following last year's oil price increases and supply uncertainties, there was, as the House knows, a huge surge in demand for gas. About 70,000 domestic customers and about 4,000 firms are waiting to be connected. I am sure that many hon. Members are aware of that situation from their own constituencies.
The pressures are so great that British Gas has had to ration the provision of new supplies almost entirely to those who have a statutory right to be connected because they are within 25 yards of a gas main. That puts industry at a substantial disadvantage compared with the domestic consumer, despite companies queueing


up, as they are, to pay a higher price. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and I have received many complaints from firms waiting to build new factories or undertake other developments which cannot get a gas supply. That cannot be satisfactory. I cannot believe that even the Opposition are prepared to condone that.
The rising demand from the domestic market has also increased the frequency of interruptions to supplies to industry on the type of contract that provides for a limited number of days' shut-off in cold weather. We believe that the sooner industry gets the gas that it is ready to pay for, the better it will be for us in the future and the better it will be for the economic health of the country.
After a decade during which domestic prices have been falling in real terms, I agree that it is difficult to predict precisely what savings in gas consumption will be made when prices start rising, but I believe that the combination of higher prices and the extra capital investment by British Gas will mean a real improvement in the availability of new gas supplies to British industry in the coming years.
I have spent some time telling the House the reasons why domestic gas prices have to rise. Let me now turn to some of the other factors that the Government took into account in reaching their decision on the three-year financial target.
British Gas is, of course, making big profits. The corporation made £360 million last year and the profits will increase substantially over the target period, though, as I have already indicated, this year there will be virtually no profit from domestic sales. The reason for those profits arises from the fact that the corporation managed to negotiate gas contracts with producers on a basis that originally did not take full account of future increases in the price of oil. In consequence, the oil price rises since 1973 have left British Gas in receipt of a substantial windfall in "economic rent" which boosts its profits enormously. Its profits help to finance its high level of capital expenditure—nearly £600 million in the coming year.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is it not a fact that British Gas is one of

the few nationalised industries operating on current cost accounting and that it is possible to shrink its profits from a surplus of £500 million in 1977–78 to about £180 million because it uses a system of accounting which is different from that of other nationalised industries?

Mr. Howell: Like the previous Government, we are seeking to get a standard accounting practice in the nationalised industries, but the figures are a fair indication of the operations of the gas industry.
The increased capital expenditure will increase the availability of gas by strengthening the transmission and gas storage systems and by bringing gas ashore faster from the Morecambe Bay gas field.
The corporation should also begin to pay corporation tax on a substantial scale in the coming years. Nevertheless, the new financial target regime will leave British Gas with cash surplus to its immediate requirements, and that cash will be deposited with the National Loans Fund. The interest will serve to increase the sums that can be deposited.
I hope that the House will accept my explanation that there are compelling energy policy reasons for increasing gas prices, though the increased profits that will result from higher prices will make an important contribution to the Government's central economic objective of holding down the public sector borrowing requirement. I see nothing wrong with that. The fact that there are two additional reinforcing arguments for the policy makes it stronger, not weaker. Some sort of gas tax has been suggested, and we shall have to look at that, but we need to be clear that whether the profits of British Gas are left in its name or taken away by tax, the effects on the PSBR are exactly the same.
There is a further important point connected with the corporation's profits. At present, about 70 per cent. of households have access to a gas supply. The remaining 30 per cent. do not benefit from having on tap the cheapest of the household fuels. Raising domestic prices will inevitably mean a transfer of the benefit from those who happen to be near enough to a gas main, via the public expenditure effects that I have described, to the community at large.
All the factors that I have mentioned so far point, regrettably, in the same direction—towards higher domestic gas prices. No one likes bigger bills, and I did not expect this necessary view of the future, which we believe it right to take, to be greeted with enthusiasm. Gas consumers have enjoyed falling prices, in relation to their incomes, for at least 10 years.
The motion vastly exaggerates the effect of the proposed gas price increases on the cost of living. The April increase will add about 0·25 per cent. to the going rate of inflation, and the October increase, which is the one which the right hon. Member for Devonport finds so objectionable, will add an additional 0·16 per cent.—both spread over the subsequent three months.

Mr. David Price: Although the motion may exaggerate what my right hon. Friend has been doing, the presence on the Labour Back Benches does not.

Mr. Howell: It is not quite the crowded assault that was billed by some of the extravagant pre-publicity.
The Opposition talk of savage increases, but I wonder what their real feelings are. When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), as Secretary of State for Energy, hiked domestic electricity prices up by 28½ per cent. in one go, I did not hear his right hon. Friends shouting "savage increase". That may be because they did not notice, because the announcement was slipped out in a written answer. Of course they were not setting proper financial targets either. In addition, there was no special scheme for the old and the poor. Let us have a little more candour from the Opposition.
To ask the British Gas Corporation to hold prices down at current levels for all domestic gas consumers is the worst possible and most wasteful and totally counter-productive way of trying to help those for whom rising fuel costs mean real hardship. We cannot protect everybody against high energy costs in today's dangerous world. It is far more sensible to identify those who need help directly.
The two policies go together, and I have never sought to hide the fact—market prices for energy and effective help for those in need, especially the old and the poor. The nationalised indus-

tries' consumer councils agree that that is the best way of helping. So did the late lamented Price Commission and the 1978 White Paper of the previous Labour Government. The motion has taken leave of all those views for a start.
The previous Government had an electricity discount scheme, but it was generally recognised to be complicated and expensive to administer—it cost £4 million to run—and all too often it went to those not in real need of help with electricity bills. It did not offer much help either to those in need whose main fuel was gas rather than electricity.
I am sure that the motives behind the scheme were excellent, but it was a classic example of trying to help everybody and ending up helping hardly anybody. The new scheme of assistance with heating costs announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in October is at least a start in providing worthwhile help for those most in need this winter.
At least the current benefit, worth £50 in a year, which is seven times the average help given by the electricity discount scheme, is big enough to make a substantial dent in a winter quarter's fuel bill for some of those in greatest hardship. The National Gas Consumers Council rightly says that it is an improvement on the previous Government's scheme.

Mr. Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman ruling out any possibility of a national fuel rebate scheme? Secondly, if the scheme introduced by the Government to replace the electricity discount scheme is so good, why is it that I, like, no doubt, many other hon. Members, have been refused information about the numbers eligible to receive the benefit? No doubt it is the policy of the Secretary of State that we should be refused information about how many people in our constituencies will receive the benefit announced by the Government.

Mr. Howell: There is no secret about the figures. They are available. I shall deal later with how the Government see the matter.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Most of my hon. Friends were concerned about the effect that the increases would have


on pensioners and in particular the disabled. We are greatly encouraged by my right hon. Friend's statement, but it is essential that it should be made clear beyond doubt, and I hope that he will issue a press release outlining his intentions.

Mr. Howell: I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware of my hon. Friend's worries, and I hope that what I am saying will reassure him.
The price increase resulting from the new financial target will not affect this winter's bills. As I told the House on 16 January, we shall take proper account of the higher cost of energy in our social policies and in determining benefit levels, particularly the levels of extra heating allowances. In that context we are reviewing the whole range of help available to assist consumers with fuel bills and to make extra provision for the elderly and others on low incomes who need help. My right hon. Friend will announce our proposals in good time for people to plan how they can manage next winter, and the proposals will be fully publicised.
To set a three-yeas financial target and to warn people openly that prices will have to be allowed to rise is, I acknowledge, never easy, and that is presumably why the last Government never got around to doing it. The decision which this Government have now made was a hard one to reach and is an easy one to criticise, but it is, none the less, I believe, the right one, and as time goes by it will increasingly be seen to be right. Despite all that has been said or implied by the Opposition, economic reason and effective social policies are not opposites. They go hand in hand. Our policy is rooted in that reality and I ask the House to support it, and with it our amendment.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: We all know that the Secretary of State for Energy is a very able man in his own way and we have certainly today had as fair a defence as he could muster, but I submit that there are three defects in what he has just told us.
First of all there was the apologia for the present scheme. I have never been a part of the yahoo school of politics in believing that simply because

my side did something wrong, therefore the other side is entitled to do equally wrong and I should not and cannot criticise. Nor have I ever believed the reverse. I believe that situations have to be taken in the circumstances of the time.
By the way, if the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is satisfied with the present scheme, why do we need another scheme? If the present scheme is adequate, why should we have a new one? The answer is that prices will go up by 29 per cent. in April, which is a very formidable figure. Also, it must be taken into account that in the next two years after that there will be a 10 per cent. impost on top of the figure for the rate of inflation. That is what we are told. So obviously the scheme we are discussing is something very relevant to the winters to come.
When we listened to the pathetic response of the Secretary of State for Social Services today in regard to this, it was quite clear that a struggle is going on within the Government over the nature of this scheme.
I say to Tory Members, with all respect, that their influence in Parliament is largely determined not just by what they do in voting but also by what they do behind the scenes, and I hope that a great effort will be mustered in the ranks of the Tory Party in favour of those Ministers who want to introduce a really comprehensive heating allowance scheme. This whole proposal of gas price increases smacks not of the Department of Energy but of the Treasury. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's references to the National Loans Fund gave the game away.
The three defects of the Minister's programme are the following. The first is the total absence of any comprehensive socially conscious scheme. The Secretary of State for Energy did his best. He has probably been fighting very hard to get a scheme of such a kind, but he is not able to announce it today, and this shows that the fight is still going on. It has to be a comprehensive scheme, comparable with nothing that we have ever had before, and one that takes into account every fuel. We all know that. The argument is that the true value of every fuel has to be known to the consumer. This is the new doctrine of the Government. We are not dissenting. In terms


of present conditions, it is not an unreasonable proposition. But, if that is true, obviously the obverse of the coin is that there must be a heating allowance scheme of a comprehensive nature.
That is mentioned at the end of our motion. What the Secretary of State for Social Services said today, and what the Secretary of State for Energy has said, gives us on the Labour Benches no confidence at all that an adequate scheme of that size will be announced this summer.
I specifically asked the Secretary of State for Social Services today two points at Question Time: first, would the new scheme be comprehensive and would it take into account more categories than those spelt out on 22 October? He refused to make any comment. Secondly, I asked whether it would be of such a size in terms of the multiple that it would get anywhere near the kind of increases that are being proposed by the Secretary of State in his three-year programme.
That is the first defect, and the Government have got to accept it. Their own Benches are uncomfortable about it. That is why all these speeches are made at the weekends by senior Ministers to try to make us believe that something is going to be done and is going to be done reasonably quickly. We are entitled as the Opposition to complain about this defect and to have it put on the record with our votes. We hope that some Tory Members will abstain or perhaps even vote with us. On that count alone, I submit that today, having heard the Secretary of State for Social Services, we have no assurance that such a scheme will be brought in.
The second argument, perhaps moving away from the anti-social aspects of these proposals, concerns the so-called three-year programme. What a laugh that is in the world of energy—the idea that anything will last three years! One need only look at the procession of White Papers we have had from various Governments trying to look ahead 10 years, seven years or five years. How reckless. To take even three years, I submit, is incredibly frivolous. I am not against planning; I am not against saying that that might be our intention and that we would like to get there, but who knows

what the price of oil will be in three years' time?

Mr. David Stoddart: In three months' time.

Dr. Mabon: Even in three months' time. But here we are debating a three-year proposal. I am not against the Government having intentions, having guidelines, but firmly to announce a 10 per cent. increase on top of inflation, without even knowing what the inflation figure will be, is reckless. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman will not be the Secretary of State for Energy in two years' time and his successor will have abandoned these figures in favour, quite rightly, of the reality of that moment.
What is the point of having all this hassle, of raising these things, burdening us with these figures, when they may not come true? The British Gas Corporation is supposed to be demanding these figures. It is not demanding these price rises; the Secretary of State now has admitted that. Of course, the British Gas Corporation welcomes the idea of having three-year guidelines, but not figures of this order. The Secretary of State is trying to have it both ways. Therefore, I submit that the second defect of this proposal is the economic nonsense of trying to argue that it is possible rigidly to plan and set firm figures for three years.
Within that context we are talking about the use of this money. What should be the use of this money? The ordinary citizen, paying his gas bills, not concerned about getting a rebate, not concerned about the heating allowance because he does not qualify, wants to know one simple thing about the Gas Corporation's profits: are they being used to improve the industry? Take the great problem of gas that is yet to come. Is it not the case that the Gas Corporation is about to embark upon one of the biggest gas-gathering pipeline systems in the world? Would it not be wise for that to be taken into account? Would it not be right for the Gas Corporation to be told that it will not be able to spend a great deal of money on exploring for gas and developing finds of gas which at the present moment are uneconomic? None of that is acknowledged. No. The money is pouring into the National Loans Fund. The Gas Corporation is in the


most extraordinary situation for a nationalised industry. It is virtually free of debt, yet at the same time the Government are forcing up the prices of gas.

Mr. Peter Emery: I know that the right hon. Gentleman would never knowingly mislead the House. The money going to the National Loans Fund is only on loan; it is not a gift. Therefore, any time the Gas Corporation wants it back it can be reclaimed.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman, whom I regard as a friend, has been a Minister and knows as well as I do what a sticky-handed lot the Treasury are. He knows as well as anybody that once it is in their hands it takes a hell of a big effort to get it out of them.
I can see the argument going on in the various Cabinet committees about this, and I would much prefer that the Gas Corporation was able to commit itself to many of these programmes of exploration, gas-gathering development of new fields and systems of pipelines and take a step forward towards the synthesising of gas, which ultimately will be its enormous role. We witnessed the Gas Corporation changing from town gas to natural gas in 10 years—one of the most remarkable achievements of British industry, or, indeed, of any industry, at any time. The yahoo aspect has to stop. It is an achievement of the industry, not of the Tory Party or the Labour Party. It is an achievement of Britain.
In time, when natural gas from the North Sea province has gone, we shall have to invent synthetic fuels by means of using waste gasifying coal and so on. These are the sort of things that the consumer wants to hear are being done with profit from gas.
Consumers would like to hear that the money is being used for that sort of benefit. But, that is not the case here. To my mind and the minds of many others—including many in the Tory Party—it is an exercise on behalf of the Treasury to try to meet the immense challenge that the Tory Party has set itself. The Treasury has to find how to make a massive cut in public expenditure in a very short space of time. For purposes of my argument, it does not matter whether that object is a good or a bad thing. The gas industry is being subverted to that

end—not to the end of promoting gas or advancing energy interests, but to that end primarily and immediately.

Mr. Peter Rost: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the principal argument in support of putting up the price of gas is that the investment that he is talking about, which he admits will be required in years to come, will become cost effective? It will become cost effective only if the market price of gas is a European or world price.

Dr. Mabon: That leads me on to what I believe is the third defect. First, I have alleged that the proposals are anti-social. Secondly, I have alleged that they are economic nonsense because they have never been properly explained and defended and that they are not about energy saving but are about a Treasury PSBR-cutting exercise. I am glad that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost) intervened, because I can add the third defect, namely, that there has been no justification for the actual figures. The Secretary of State has taken no time, either in this speech or in previous speeches, to defend any of the figures. I have listened carefully to him and read a great deal of what he has said on the matter, he will be surprised to hear. They are curious figures, not vague but very definite.
Other than the explanation about a Treasury exercise that I have given, there is no real explanation to justify what the figures mean in terms of the industry. However ineffective some hon. Members may feel at times—merely by voting and not speaking often—being a voter tonight is something. I hope that all my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the motion, whatever may be its language in the eyes of the Secretary of State for Energy. Likewise, I hope that Conservative Members will be tempted to vote for the motion so that we might bring some sense to bear upon the Government.

Mr. John Hannam: Most hon. Members have a great liking for the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon). However, they should agree that most of his arguments this afternoon support the amendment that was moved by my right hon.


Friend the Secretary of State to the Opposition motion. I should like to take up briefly some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate and that some of the right hon. Gentleman's points will be referred to by them.
On 9 January, a report in the Financial Times stated that it was just as well that New Year's Day was a public holiday, otherwise United Kingdom industry would have its gas supplies cut off because of a surge in demand by domestic consumers. The report added that only a steel strike would avert further cuts in gas supply this winter, regardless of weather conditions. In July 1979, after two years of the freezing of gas prices by the Labour Government, when the real price of gas fell by about 15 per cent., the Price Commission called for a 30 per cent. increase in gas prices. That was at a time when inflation was running at between 8 and 9 per cent.
In November of last year, at an energy seminar in Plymouth, the Opposition spokesman on energy, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), referred to the likely energy gap in 1990 and the immediate need to conserve energy. He said that we would need to build more nuclear power stations. I agree with him on that. He also said that conservation of fuels was essential. I agree with him on that, too. He added that a pricing policy was inevitable and that a special scheme of help for poorer families would therefore be needed. I agree with him on that as well
At the same conference, the deputy chairman of South Western Gas spoke of the fivefold increase in gas usage since the 1960s and the dramatic effect on the gas market of the "flight from oil" of last year. He said that a great imbalance in demand and supply had been created by the surge of new customers and appliances. I should like to quote briefly from his speech. I believe that his remarks relate directly to today's debate and what I consider to be the hypocritical attitude of the Opposition.
On the subject of price, the deputy chairman said:
The demand for domestic gas has been intensified by an artificially low price, which

has, by successive Governments and their price-regulatory bodies, been held down to a rate of increase roughly two-thirds of the RPI or one-half of earnings or pensions…The Price Commission has recently commented on this and indicated that a substantial increase in gas price is overdue and that there should be more parity between these and industrial prices…Supplies of natural gas will last well into the next century as long as they are not recklessly dissipated as a result of short-term pressures. When natural gas does commence to be depleted there are practical and economical processes to make a completely interchangeable gas from oil products or, more importantly, from coal.
The price of natural gas must increase—Industrial prices will be geared to oil—Commercial prices have already increased substantially this year and will follow the same trend, and—Domestic prices, artificially held down for so long, will certainly rise next year by a significant amount.
Under the previous Government, not only did the former Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), hold down gas prices artificially for two years but, at the same time, he allowed spending of large amounts of money—millions of pounds—to persuade people to use more gas. Over seven years about £73·7 million was spent with that objective in mind. It is no wonder that this winter has seen a dangerous over-demand for gas and a loss-making domestic sector in the Gas Corporation. Industrial gas users are being clobbered not only by high gas prices and charges but by the serious lack of guaranteed supplies.
In Holland, a similar problem developed over the previous decade. Through the low pricing of gas, the country allowed such a substantial increase of its usage that the crazy result was that about 90 per cent. of space heating in Holland was provided by gas, and about80 per cent. of electricity generation was provided from the burning of gas. In economic thermal usage terms, that makes no sense at all. Holland saw the danger about three years ago and effected a doubling of gas prices in that time.
Sir Denis Rooke was reported as being so concerned about the instability of gas supply that he was considering cutting off gas supplies to the House of Commons if the necessary steps were not taken to remove the requirement to buy gas without discrimination. He realised the danger and made that comment. We have a price structure which means that, at a time when energy conservation is


being preached by everybody, United Kingdom domestic gas prices are half those in Germany and France and 70 per cent. lower than prices in Italy. Yet industry in this country is paying more for gas than our competitors in those countries.
About 20 per cent. of our gas comes from the Norwegian sector of the Frigg field. The next main new source of gas is likely to be the Norwegian Statfjord field. Gas prices from those northern fields are five times higher than the old southern-based gas contracts. There is fierce European competition for supplies of gas from those fields. If gas prices were to be increased on an oil-related basis, the increase would be nearer 60 per cent. compared with the 29 or 30 per cent. that is proposed for the next three years. That answers the point raised by the right hon. Member for Devonport about the unfairness of these increases. If gas prices were linked to oil prices, the increase would have to be double that announced by the Government.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: If the Gas Corporation negotiates with an oil company, is it not the case that from now on it will be in a considerably weaker position as regards the rates at which it can obtain supplies of gas? It was not in such a weak position in the classic case mentioned by the Secretary of State in relation to the southern fields.

Mr. Hannam: The Gas Corporation is still in a monopoly situation in the southern fields. It is competing with overseas buyers for gas, and it is therefore having to pay the market price. That is the price that the British consumer has to pay. It is the market price of the northern gas fields that we must accept. If one adds to the price of gas the need for massive investment during the coming decade in order to ensure a switchover to gasification from coal—when oil and gas reserves run out—the arguments for the Government's action are irrefutable.
When and how fast should those increases be applied? That is the nub of the Opposition's argument. The other part of that argument is about how to protect the poor and the elderly. First, the price increases should be implemented immediately. I have pointed to the Dutch example and said that we are only halfway towards achieving parity

with oil. No one will dispute that there should be a substantial increase now. That point was emphasised at the conference in Plymouth which the right hon. Member for Devonport attended. He did not dispute that fact then.
The former top Labour economic adviser, Michael Posner, has come out decisively in favour of the timing and method of the gas price increase. He favours stable long-term financial objectives for nationalised industries rather than short-term taxes that are subject to the whims of the Government. I should like a system which ensures a proper revenue return to the taxpayer, in addition to giving proper incentives for the development of marginal gas fields. The present system does not do that. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will outline the Government's views on the advantages and disadvantages of a gas tax system.
Finally, I turn to the emotive aspect of the three-year hike in gas prices, which is the effect on the elderly and the poor. The Opposition seized the political opportunity presented by the rather hurried announcement that was made after a press leak. They painted a picture of people faced with grave hardships and of their sometimes dying as a result of price increases that will rise 10 per cent. above inflation next year. All hon. Members are concerned to ensure that proper protection is given to those who are unable to adjust their weekly budgets to allow for a particular commodity price increase.
I should have welcomed the announcement of a major social package at the same time as these price increases. The lack of it is probably the cause of complaints by many hon. Members. However, in recent years we have had increases for electricity, oil and coal similar to the present increase. How many people suffered death or the consequences that were portrayed in remarks made at the time of the announcements? When coal prices rose as a result of the miners' pay demand, did Labour Members raise the same cries? The same situation applies, because it involves a dramatic increase in the cost of fuel to consumers.
We must look at this problem from all angles as part of a rational policy to help the poor and the elderly. Many poor and elderly people have night storage heaters. They face the same problems


as gas consumers face now. We must consider a new system of charging. Instead of reducing the charge as consumption increases, we should reverse that process. We should demand an increased charge for increased consumption. North Thames Gas charges about 29·30p per therm for an annual use of 80 units. That drops to 17·27p per therm for 1,200 units. That is ridiculous, because the more fuel one uses, the cheaper the price. If a new system were introduced, combined with a drive to insulate many of the older properties in which the elderly and poor live, we should get to grips with the problem.
I call for a package that will give real help to the elderly and to the poor. I should like a better system of charges, in order to encourage conservation. I seek an explanation of the gas tax versus financial objectives argument. However, I reiterate my support for the Government's decision, unpopular as it may be in the short term. Natural gas is a resource that is precious to the nation, and it is invaluable to the economy. However, it is not infinite in quantity. We must ensure its supply for as long as possible into the next century.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I wish to take issue with the Minister about his use of the word "hysterical" to describe the motion on the Order Paper in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Is it hysterical to condemn savage increases that will hit ordinary families? Is it hysterical to say that those increases will have a devastating effect on the cost of living? Is it hysterical to draw the Government's attention, and that of the House, to the devastating effect that those increases will have on the worst-hit sections of the community?
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) pointed out that a number of people have already suffered because of the high cost of fuel. Perhaps he does not represent a constituency like mine. I regularly receive letters and calls at my surgeries from those who have had their gas or electricity cut off because they cannot pay the bill. They are not spendthrifts or drunkards. They do not waste their money. That is not why they can-

not pay their bills. They are families with children, where perhaps the breadwinner is disabled or sick. Perhaps there is no breadwinner.
Those who cannot pay their bills often include pensioners and those receiving disability allowances. They are people in the lowest income groups. Single parent families also find it difficult to pay their bills. It is not good enough for the Minister to point to the increases that were allowed last October. Those were agreed in the previous Budget. It is people on social security, pensioners and other low income groups who are worst affected. I accept that the Labour Party can be criticised as much as the Conservative Party for the way that a Budget announcement is made. When an announcement is made in April or May, people must wait until October before any benefit is received.
The Minister cannot use the argument that whatever was given to those unfortunate people last October will benefit them as regards future increases in gas prices. Such increases—meagre as they were—have already been absorbed by the general increase in the cost of living. The Minister has promised us something for the future. We do not know what it is. We certainly know the record of the Government during the short time that they have been in power. We can judge by that record what the lower income groups and the poorer people of Britain will receive in future.
The dogma of the Conservative Government is to cut, cut and cut again. We have been warned of the possibility of future cuts. The cuts that have occurred have hit hardest at the lower income groups, the sick, the disabled and other badly off sections in our community. I find it extremely difficult to accept a vague promise that the Government will do something for these unfortunate people.
Let us consider another section of the community—owner-occupiers, young couples, perhaps with young families, who are setting up homes. Many of them misguidedly helped to return this Government. How are they feeling about the proposals? I know how many of them are feeling in my constituency. They have borne the brunt of increased VAT,


with household goods and clothing costing a tremendous amount. Owner-occupiers are saddled with large mortgage repayments. They have suffered increases in the mortgage rate which can be attributed directly to this Government's policy.
The Conservative Party in Opposition levelled tough and bitter criticisms at the Labour Government for increases in the cost of living. We were attacked because it was held that we had caused those increases—and such increases obviously are felt most severely by the poorest sections in the community. The actions of this Conservative Government have contributed more to the increased cost of living than our legislation on such matters as imports.
I was extremely cross when I first heard of the gas price increases. I knew how they would affect the people whom I represent. I made a little press statement. Unusual though it may be, that statement appeared in many newspapers, not just the one in my constituency. As a result, I have received letters from all over the country. It may surprise the Government to know that I received letters from Tory strongholds, such as Bournemouth, Eastbourne and Torquay. These people read my statement and wished to join me in protesting bitterly and strongly. They are not Socialists. They are not Labour supporters. The Government should look to their laurels and consider not only the poorest sections of our community, which I wish to support, but their own supporters.
I venture to suggest that if this Government went to the country now the result would not be the same as in May 1979. Many of the people who supported them then would not vote at all or would go over to the other side. Increased prices and cuts in public services are being felt, not only by the poorer people but throughout the country, and the Government are responsible.
We cannot increase the price of such a commodity as gas without industry being affected. It has already been badly hit by the increased bank rate that the Government imposed. The consequences for industry will, in turn, cause higher prices in the shops. We shall also be less competitive in selling our goods abroad, and we must sell abroad if we are to buy the food and

raw materials that we need. That is our lifeline.
In their short time in power, the Government have added insult to injury in bringing our country to its knees. There will be worse to come. As a result of their economic policies, industrial stagnation has already set in. I wonder what industry will have left in 10 years' time.
The Government's policies will make life more difficult for the domestic consumer, and especially those who cannot afford price increases. Further, the cuts in services will affect most the sick, the disabled and those least able to look after themselves. Their policy appears to be: if people have, they can have more; if people have little, they can have less. The Government's method of rationalising or conserving supplies is to ensure that those who can afford to pay will get the supplies that there are and those who cannot will go short.

Mr. Peter Emery: This is a curious debate. I found the comments of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) quite irrelevant to the problems of gas and energy policy. It seems to me that the sooner he goes back to foreign affairs, the better for him and for the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. And it will be better for the Opposition, so that we can rectify Left-wing pressure on foreign affairs.
In all the publicity that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) put out, I wonder what he believes will be the average increase on the average bill.

Mr. Torney: It will be 29 per cent.

Mr. Emery: How much is it in real terms?

Mr. Torney: Quite a lot.

Mr. Emery: It is not quite a lot.

Mr. Torney: It is for those who are not earning much.

Mr. Emery: Let me tell the House exactly what it will be. We should consider the facts of the "savage increase" that the hon. Gentleman talks of. The increase to the average domestic consumer will be 56p a week.

Mr. Torney: That is a lot for those on social security.

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member for Bradford, South suggests that this Government have no feeling for those who are worst off. Since his Government left office, we have given a fuel allowance of over £50 a year for the 355,000 who are worst off. We have dealt more generously with the worst-off section in the community than the Labour Government, and that fact must be registered.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Can the hon. Gentleman justify that argument? It would mean that in the great parliamentary constituency of Honiton, which I know fairly well, there are only 500 people who need help with their fuel bills. In effect, that is the proportion helped by the Government's legislation.

Mr. Emery: Those who are severely badly off are getting aid from a Conservative Government which they did not get from a Labour Government.
Having said that, I find myself in a worrying and difficult position. I helped to set up the Department of Energy with my right hon. Friend, and I resolutely admire his intellectual approach in politics and his work for the Conservative Party on policy matters. The last thing that I wish to do is to begin condemning his approach today.
However generous any of us may feel, the presentation of the new gas prices that will be necessary to obtain the new financial objectives for the British Gas Corporation can hardly be described as an oustanding success. Nor could it be claimed, certainly before the debate, that the British public knew or understood what was behind the new energy policy.
I listened with great attention to my right hon. Friend's speech. I congratulate him. I believe that he has cleared up a number of previously unanswered questions, most specifically in view of the assurance he has given of further assistance to the least well off before the new price increases begin to bite. Many consumers turned to gas because they believed the Gas Corporation's advertising that stated
Gas—the clean, cheap fuel
or
Join the bonanza of gas from the North Sea.
That is what the new consumers wanted. Now they see a nationalised industry being well managed, highly successful and

making major profits. "Hurry, damn!" might well be their expletive. But the pleasure may not last long. We now have a Government policy that demands greater profits, increasing the net return on replacement cost of capital employed from 6·1 per cent. to 9 per cent. That is a one-third increase in profits. In terms of profitability, this means an increase not to the BGC but to the Government?

Mr. Tim Eggar: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the profit to which he refers is in the form of the economic rent that should be accruing not to the BGC but to the Government?

Mr. Emery: That is an interesting argument about the economic rent factor of mineral resources underground. It is not part of the argument with which I am trying to deal.
My worry is that the Government have failed to communicate and have failed to convince the public about the reasons for their policy. The domestic consumer knows that the Government are determined to overcome inflation and wish to see prices rise as little as necessary. The consumer sees the British Gas Corporation operating effiently and making substantial profits. It is, therefore, strange and, to many, unacceptable that the supplier of something better and cheaper than that provided by competitors should be forced to put up the price. Surely, it would not be unreasonable to claim that this is the worst practice of a monopolist. In private industry, it would be condemned. The argument that competition is meant to bring down prices, not push prices upward to match the prices of expensive competitors, such as coal and electricity, must be answered completely.

Mr. David Howell: I am listening closely to my hon. Friend. He has great experience in these matters. To give a fair picture of the profits issue, he has to emphasise what is the position, namely, that no profit is being made from domestic gas sales. If there was not a price increase, we would have a subsidised domestic gas price. That cannot be right.

Mr. Emery: I reject that approach. I am trying to establish an argument that people can understand. It is necessary to talk of the efficiency of the gas industry. I shall then come to the point made by my right hon. Friend.
It is important to stress, and give praise to, the efficiency of the gas industry and the success of its management. It has carried out 13 million conversions to North Sea gas with a minimum of dislocation. Over the last two years, it has reduced its borrowing and capital liabilities from £2,093 million on 1 April 1977 to £881 million on 1 April 1979. That is over £1·2 billion down—a remarkable performance.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I seek clarification. You said that the British Gas Corporation had hoodwinked—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr Bernard Weatherill): I did not say anything.

Mr. Dickens: My hon. Friend was saying that the British Gas Corporation had hoodwinked the general public in switching to cheap gas. He is now singing the praises of the British Gas Corporation.

Mr. Emery: I never said that the Gas Corporation had hoodwinked the public about cheap gas. I said that the public believed that it would stay at the levels at which it was.

Mr. Dickens: As advertised.

Mr. Emery: As advertised, if my hon. Friend cares to say so. At the same time, the transfer of depreciation from historic cost basis to current price replacement cost basis has cost an extra £310 million over the last two years. Accumulated reserves of £783 million have been built up and still there have been pre-tax profits of £360 million and £180 million. Over the last two years, surpluses on operation of an amount in the region of £2,050 million have been created. That is a remarkable financial prospect of which any company would have reason to be proud.
I now wish to turn to conservation. In the ultimate, as my right hon. Friend the Minister says, gas supplies are finite. But we must be honest with the people. At the moment, we have announced gas reserves to last for 30 years. Knowing the oil companies, I feel that this will be a conservative estimate. It does not take into account associated gas from oil production fields or the aspects of imported Algerian gas contracts that may be available. Nor does it accept that new technology will allow for much greater

extraction from existing fields. With only minimal new discoveries and even a doubling of our gas consumption, I believe that we shall have adequate domestic supplies in 50 or probably 75 to 100 years' time.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: rose—

Mr. Emery: I have given way a lot. Many hon. Members rise to speak. I shall give way, but this will be the last time.

Mr. Palmer: At least, I am on the Opposition side of the House. Are the figures that the hon. Gentleman has quoted British supplies or do they depend on the Norwegians?

Mr. Emery: These are British supplies. But these supplies are likely in time—I stress "in time"—to become more expensive. However, in considering conservation, I have to be convinced that the demand is so elastic that, for heating, it alters greatly as the price increases. I shall attempt to argue that this is not the case.
It is true that although British Gas has, in past years, always had a surplus of gas available of between 3½ to 5 per cent. of total demand per annum, there are problems of shortages during very cold weather at the highest peak of demand. But this is not basically a pricing policy matter. Whatever the price in the most bitter weather, people will heat their homes if this is possible. I refuse to believe that there is great elasticity of demand in that sense. I would argue that there need never be any shortage for domestic consumers.
I would suggest that a surge of an extra 10 per cent. by domestic consumers can be easily met. It has always been catered for in the past by the use of interruptible supply contracts to industry that make up between 15 to 20 per cent. of industrial contracts. These companies have always made provision to deal with the problem of supply interruption and have been willing to accept this to obtain special discounts. To talk of domestic gas consumers freezing is nothing short of scare-mongering. I am, however, worried that, because of the cheapness of gas, the vast majority of the nation will want to turn to gas. Then, of course, existing facilities will be inadequate to meet that situation.
I turn to the argument that there is no profit in the supply of gas to domestic consumers. I believe that this is an argument of some considerable ingenuity. It is based entirely on the management accounting decision as to how one applies certain overhead costs. It rests on the decision concerning the correct proportion of capital overheads and operating expenses as between industrial and domestic consumers.
Last year industry purchased just over six million therms of gas at a total cost of £721 million. That gives an average of cost per therm of 11·9p. Domestic consumers purchased about 7·9 million therms. At the same average cost, they would have contributed £939 million to the British Gas Corporation's accounts. What did they actually contribute? The domestic consumers actually paid £519 million more, so that the average cost per therm was 55 per cent. higher than the industrial price—an average of 18·5p a therm.
If the gas were to be supplied at the same cost per therm without quantity discounts, and the total costs were divided on the basis of equal proportion per therms supplied, the average thermal cost would be 15·9p. On that basis the Government's argument could not be correct, and the domestic consumer could expect a reduction of at least 2·5p a therm. Therefore, it is ingenious to argue that the domestic consumer does not contribute to the profits of the British Gas Corporation, because this must depend on the accounting factors of the corporation.
The fact of most overriding importance is that BGC is making a thumping good profit. Therefore, how can the Government stop a massive rise of gas demand from new consumers? There are two respectable arguments for dealing with price increases. First, the Government could think that it is unfair that energy consumers other than gas consumers should pay between 200 and 250 per cent. more for the same amount of energy, or that a gas consumer should be able to heat his home at one-third the cost faced by electricity consumers. Therefore gas prices, it could be argued, should go up to obtain the profits which would allow an equalisation of prices between the two commodities. However, that is not the

argument, nor is it the policy of the Government.
Secondly, it is honest to say that because of the low price of British gas compared with world energy prices generally, the Government will put up the price of gas in order to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement by another £360 million. That would benefit everyone. If that is the policy, the Government should say so openly. Although there is the power to do this, it would breach the intention of section 14 of the Gas Act 1972, which requires the industry to break even, taking one year with the next.
Therefore, let us consider the alternative of a gas tax. This is not a revolutionary suggestion and it should be realised that there is already an existing tax on heating oil—the rebate tax on oil of 3p a gallon which is the equivalent to 1·7p a therm if applied to gas. At that rate it would raise some £290 million for the Government on the basis of present consumption. Therefore, it must be understood absolutely by gas consumers that they have been in a most favoured position over the last few years. I quote an exact example because one has not been given today. I found this in the Library and it affects London prices. If a small customer consumes 2,500 kilowatts a year, one kilowatt hour of heat would cost 1p if it was gas but 3·516p if it was electricity. If the same applied to a large customer consuming 30,000 kilowatts a year, those costs would be ·589p for gas but 2·179p for electricity.
It must be clearly understood beyond peradventure that gas consumers have been in a special position because of the low price of their commodity. It is clear that the Government may well consider the requirement for a major capital expenditure—I would hope in a utility company—to finance a pipeline complex to ensure that smaller gas fields which are uneconomic on their own can be drawn together to maximise energy potential and go forward. I know that it is difficult to afford that money from the Treasury, but I suggest that the profits that are being made by the British Gas Corporation should be set towards the ability—if this cannot be launched on the market—for financing that type of extra energy. I believe that the capital requirement to do that would be more than £2 billion at present prices, and, as such a project is


likely to be some way off, obviously the cost will be very much more.
While that pipeline scheme is being prepared, there is nothing wrong with the reserve going to the public sector borrowing requirement so as to benefit everyone.
In conclusion, one can dismiss the whole Opposition argument as inconsequential, unrelated to their actions in Government and out of tune with reality. One must recognise that the Government are propounding a new policy for the gas industry. Whatever arguments are used, gas consumers, both domestic and industrial, are getting an unbelievable bargain at the present level of prices, which are massively below other energy costs. These consumers will still be getting a bargain even after the increase. Therefore, the Government are quite justified in setting out to rectify the position.
Having said that, I believe that section 14 of the Gas Act might be altered. However, rather than have excess profits within a nationalised industry—which is not the intention in the structure of any nationalised industry—it would be much better to introduce a direct taxing method to ensure that that does not come about. This should be phased in, perhaps to increase the retail price index by no more than a half per cent. in any one year. It should be phased in with the necessary fuel assistance for the poor which, thank goodness, the Government have announced.
The pricing policy will not stop major and continuing demand by new customers—particularly industrial customers—for connection to the gas supply. I do not believe that the price increases will do that. Therefore, I believe that there should be an amendment to the fourth schedule to the Act, altering the obligation to supply so that this is brought more into line with the general approach of section 2(1) of the Act. I will not go into all these matters but they are very specific. Section 2 makes it quite clear that it is the duty of the Corporation to develop supplies
so far as it is economical to do so".
That interpretation should be used by the Gas Corporation instead of the very much more precise obligations in the Act.
I should point out that the increased income from gas passing to the Government

would allow the money to be used across the board, whether for the PSBR or to relieve taxation, but most certainly for fuel assistance, as promised by the Government, to the benefit of all users.
I find myself more or less where I started on 14 January. I warned the Government during Question Time then that they had better explain the reasons for their gas policy or they would be open to criticism. We did not get that across to begin with. I only hope that this debate will have contributed to getting that message across to the public.

Mr. David Penhaligon: The Minister is making a major policy decision in this debate, or at least he is backing up one made over the past few years. That decision is to give OPEC countries the power to fix the internal prices of our gas and oil even though we are one of the few countries that are self-sufficient in both.
Having listened to the Minister's argument for this increase, which comprises inflation plus 10 per cent., I would like to know how firm the three-year programme is. The argument for this increase is that the world price of oil generated by OPEC has gone up. If OPEC increases the price again in six months, nine months, 12 months or two years' time, what will the Government do about gas prices then? Will they say that the increase will be kept at inflation plus 10 per cent. provided that OPEC does not put up the price of oil yet again? Or are the Government saying that given another OPEC oil price increase gas prices will be increased further? If they do not announce that, their argument is not logical.
I can see an argument for increasing gas prices on the basis of inflation. Internal labour costs, if nothing else, have gone up. However, I do not concede the case that has been employed in this debate, which is that Britain must, automatically and slavishly, follow world demand prices for energy. It strikes me as ironic that one of the few nations self-sufficient in oil charges more for its oil than almost any other country. We certainly charge as much as the OPEC countries, and more, I believe, than all but one of them. I do not understand


the logic of that for an industrially based country such as ours.

Mr. Eggar: Perhaps the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will clarify that remark. I am not aware that North Sea crude is sold for any greater sum than comparable—I stress the word "comparable"—African or North African crude.

Mr. Penhaligon: I thought that that was what I said. We are following totally the latest OPEC oil price increase, but our oil does not have a stated price relative to some particular crude from North Africa. If the price of OPEC oil goes up, ours automatically goes up. There is no price justification for that increase. Nothing has changed. There is no extra labour force. No sudden extra investment is required. But when OPEC puts the price up we put ours up by exactly the same margin, on the same day bar a few hours.
We have reached the ludicrous position in our economy of realising that the saddest day in our economic growth in the last couple of decades was the day that we discovered North Sea oil and gas. That is a ludicrous proposition, but already one can see the effects on our industry.
The international value of the pound in part reflects the fact that we are self-sufficient in oil. It also partially reflects the ludicrous monetary policy of the Government. That, however, is a debate for another time. We apply to our industry an international value for our currency—a value that cannot be justified on any basis.
As a rural Member who lives many miles from the industrial heartland of Great Britain, I can say that the future of my constituents relies on the ability of our industry to survive and compete in international trade. The combination of following—to the penny—international energy prices and monetary blight is killing our industry stone dead or is, at least, having a good try.
I could have been more sympathetic to the Government today on three counts. There is no point in arguing that there is no problem. The problem was underlined by the statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). There

is not much point in the people of my village, which I have never left, arguing against gas price increases. They have never seen a cubic foot of gas in their lives. Nor will they ever see one, because their village is a long way from the local gas pipe. There is a case to be made that those people are being penalised by being excluded from a supply of gas.
If the Government had come forward and said that they were putting up the price of gas to enable them to operate a system of cross-subsidy for other sources of fuel, I would have had some sympathy for them and seen some logic in their argument. I might even have been persuaded to stand up and argue the case for them. But the Government have not announced that.
If the Government had told the House that their main concern was the conservation of energy, that they had an employment problem on their hands that would get worse, and that as a result of the new increase in gas prices they would establish a massive scheme for energy conservation throughout the length and breadth of Britain, I could have seen some logic in that. That would have been a rationale for saving energy and providing jobs.
Thirdly, had the Government come forward today with a firm indication of what they proposed to do to help the elderly, the disabled and the low paid—of whom my constituency has more than are found in the constituencies of the majority of hon. Members—I could have had some sympathy for the Government. On the first two counts, the Government have clearly indicated that they will do nothing. On the third, they have expressed little more than a pious hope that they might produce something before the end of the year. If the scheme they produced last time is any indication of what is to come, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—when not in the Division Lobby—will admit that it is disappointing.
I do not expect any difficulty in persuading my colleagues to vote with the Opposition tonight against this increase. The Government have not made out their case.

Mr. Cyril Smith: It is a tax.

Mr. Penhaligon: My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) is making my case for me. The Government have introduced a tax. That fits in with the argument of the hon. Member for Honiton. Had the Government stood up and admitted that, they would have got away with it better than they have.

Mr. William Waldegrave: It is an intimidating thing for an experienced speaker in this House to face the serried ranks of the Opposition on a major occasion like this. Unfortunately, this time the Leader of the Opposition appears to have called a war and nobody has turned up for it. Perhaps there is a war going on elsewhere that is of more interest to Opposition Members.
This debate has been full of pleasant ironies. The most enjoyable of them was that the main weapon with which we were able to beat the chief Opposition spokesman on energy was the performance of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), whose policy at the end of 1976 was based on exactly the same principles as those that we are now following. I have no doubt that the right hon. Member did not believe in that policy then, since he is not a great supporter of the price mechanism, whereas the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), in attacking our policy, is probably attacking a policy that he believed in then and still believes in now. I have never seen two such intelligent people as the right hon. Member for Devonport and the right hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) struggling so desperately to find arguments against Government policy.
On the other hand, the Conservative Party is full of resource and is providing its own debate. Indeed, we have had, more or less, a one-man debate in the shape of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens), who is given to surprising forays, will also add savour to the debate. We had to wait until the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton to discover some of the arguments against the gas price increases, just as we had to wait until the speech of the right hon. Member for Greenock

and Port Glasgow to find some of the arguments in favour of our policy. The right hon. Member put the case against imposing a tax on gas quite clearly.
I reiterate the three principal grounds in favour of the kind of policy decided upon by Her Majesty's Government. The first argument is, who gets the rent from the North Sea gas fields? Surely that is the fundamental argument. It was not due to the inventiveness of the British Gas Corporation or of anybody else, nor was it due to great capital investment over many years, that a great asset was discovered in the North Sea. It was a gift of God to the whole community. The Government are quite justified in taking the surplus and distributing it. It is most likely that it will be used to reduce the public debt and for the diminution of taxation. It will thus be distributed to the entire community.
I appreciate that some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon),represent areas where gas connection is not always available. Most of my constituents are within the range of gas mains, but I accept that for those who live in the area of Somerset in which I was born, for example, it is unfair that they should not in any way be able to derive benefit from the national asset of North Sea gas.
The second argument was advanced neatly and accurately by my friend Michael Posner, in a letter to The Times. At present it is irrational to invest capital in energy conservation in one's house or to undertake proper methods of insulation if it is possible to connect oneself to the gas system, that system being a much cheaper alternative. It cannot be sensible to take any other course under present conditions.
Investment is not being undertaken, furthermore, by industry in, for example, new forms of electrical space heating, which, I have no doubt, in the long term will be the basis of home heating. There is not sufficient investment in heat pumps, for example, because the low level of gas prices makes such investment not worthwhile. I have heard representations from companies involved in that type of development and I have been urged by them to advance that argument.
The third principal argument hangs on the irresponsibility of luring into an


attachment to the gas system an increasing number of domestic consumers who at some stage will have to be disconnected, or on whose behalf great capital investment in chancy new processes will have to be made to meet their future needs. About1 million new domestic consumers have been attracted to attachment to the gas system in the past three years. Surely it is not in their interests to maintain an artificially low price for gas, so that in due course we have either to cut off their supply or increase prices in an enormous step.
There is a clever-silly argument, the sort of argument that my alma mater, the Oxford Union, is sometimes accused of encouraging. It is this: "Is not this price rise an intervention by a Conservative Government who are committed to non-intervention?" I do not think that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends will argue that the Government, however free-market we might like them to be, should not have a view on the prices of a monopoly buyer that is a monopoly distributor. As I have said, it is a clever-silly argument. I hope that we shall not hear it again from the editor of the Spectator or from anyone else.
I add two major caveats. First, it is a great Pity in presentation and political terms that we were not able to announce a scheme to help the old and the cold at the same time as the price increase. I have worked in Whitehall and I respect the reasons that led to that announcement not being made. I am aware of the difficulties, but it is a pity that no such announcement was made. It may be that the indisposition of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General led us temporarily to lose our grip on presentation. However, I welcome wholeheartedly my right hon. Friend's announcement today that such a scheme is well under way. We shall welcome it when it is put before us.
The second caveat is this. The British Gas Corporation is now protected by a cost-plus method of pricing, which removes it, even though it has to meet its target return, from some of the pressure for efficiency and from some of the pressure to control its costs. That is a matter of some concern. It is fortunate that the Government are about to put themselves in a position to deal with that problem. When the Competition Bill is

enacted, we shall be able to refer nationalised industries to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That would be a sensible course to take at some stage during the next three years, to ensure that the corporation does not take advantage of its now privileged position on prices to waste money.
The House is not always at its best when it is responding to pressure groups and losing sight of the common good and the future national interest. It is so easy for the right hon. Member for Devonport to say that although he supports the principle of increasing prices, he would have increased them differently, more slowly, or in some magical way that would have hurt no one. The truth is that many people will have to pay higher gas prices, higher oil prices and higher energy costs generally over the next few years. There is nothing that the House or anybody else can do to avoid that. However, we can and should take steps to ensure that those who are least able to help themselves are protected. It is irresponsible of those who are responding to their constituents' letters to try to pretend that there is a way out of an expensive energy future.
Those who argue against the gas price increase will have a pretty feeble answer when asked by their children what they did in the great energy war. Their only answer will be "I kept down the price of gas so that the supply ran out quicker." That will be a frightfully helpful answer. It will come to be seen that those who have acted like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—courageously, and in so doing facing short-term unpopularity—to relate the prices of the gas industry to the reality of the world's energy economy did the right thing. That is why I hope that all hon. Members will support the Government's amendment and face the short-term unpopularity that may derive from that vote.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: My fellow Bristol parliamentarian, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), made an interesting remark at the beginning of his speech when he said that the undoubted success of the gas industry did not owe all that much to the ingenuity of the industry; it owed much more to the forces of God—shall we say the forces of nature—which


provided, on discovery, a great new resource in the North Sea.
I have always felt that it was something of a blunder—it was a Conservative Government who introduced the Gas Act 1972—to allow the gas industry, a retail industry in competition with the electricity industry, to have unlimited access to wholesaling. If the electricity supply industry owned the coal industry, that would probably make a great difference to its economics. The hon. Gentleman started a useful chain of thought.
Thanks to the consideration of the Chair, I have taken part fairly frequently in energy debates. I have long argued that one of the most obvious tasks of the Department of Energy is to maintain, under varying world conditions of price and supply, a rational relative pricing structure for available energy sources.
It is no good saying that the industries can do that between themselves. They cannot. They naturally look to their own interests. There are those who talk about the forces of the market. Perfect competition may make sense for grocers' shops or hairdressing salons, but with gigantic public utilities such as the gas and electricity industries, which involve vast capital investment that the nation cannot afford to under-use and have a national monopoly, market forces can have only a limited effect towards achieving good results.
The price of coal is emerging more and more in electricity prices rather than in its own right in terms of the coal industry. Oil price is dominated as much by international political considerations as anything else. I have always been against interference by Ministers in the day-to-day running of the fuel industries, but I believe that ministerial price intervention is essential if the consumer is to make a choice that he or she will not afterwards regret.
Domestic consumers have spent money that they perhaps could ill afford in moving from one fuel to another in recent years. They might have changed from electricity night storage heaters that appeared to be less expensive to oil when that seemed to be the cheapest domestic source, and then during the past two or three years to natural gas. That is not genuine consumer choice.
In principle, I have no objection to the Secretary of State continuing to fix up-to-date rates of return on assets for nationalised gas and electricity. A Conservative Member suggested that that was a recent recommendation of the Select Committee on nationalised industries. My experience of these matters goes back rather further. It was, first, a recommendation of the Select Committee on nationalised industries of two decades ago that Ministers should fix the proper rates of return in order to have a balance in matters of consumer choice and cost.
Twenty years ago electricity was expected to make a high cash return on its assets because it was doing extremely well. At that time town gas was doing very badly and, hence, the rate of return was set well down. Now the boot is on the other foot. I wish to make a fair party point—as many party points have been made during the debate—by asking who broke up, who smashed, who sabotaged that rational way of carrying through energy pricing policies. I know who it was. It was the Conservative Government of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) occupied a junior position in that Government. I am sure that his talents deserved better.
That Conservative Government started the subsidisation of two prosperous nationalised industries. The industries did not ask for that. The electricity supply management resented it enormously, as did the trade unions operating within that industry. The Conservatives subsidised the industries to hold down prices to help the acceptability of their policy of wage restraint. It was the Conservative Party that broke a system that had been working well. It was Labour Ministers, especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley)—who is not here today—who risked a great deal of unpopularity within the Labour Party to return prices to something like rationality.
The unrestricted way in which the British Gas Corporation has been allowed to behave in recent years has not been in the national interest. I am not blaming its energetic chairman, Sir Denis Rooke, for the manner in which he acted in the interests of his industry. British resources of gas in the North Sea have been depleted too fast and too soon,


leaving more to come eventually from the Norwegian field. It has unbalanced the British fuel economy, largely at the expense of electricity. I declare my known interest here.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman says that gas resources have been depleted too fast. There is a known reserve of between possibly more. Following that, there will 35 trillion cu ft and 80 trillion cu ft, and be synthetic gas available from the further gasification of oil products or coal.

Mr. Palmer: I am well aware of the hoped-for coming of unnatural gas. The hon. Gentleman must understand that that is for the future. It will come one day, but it is not yet here. In the meantime, the North Sea supplies are already running down. I was rather surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Honiton, who was one of the leaders in the Standing Committee in 1972. He said that he thought that the gas industry had been tied too tightly to a statutory obligation to supply consumers. That is not the case. One must compare the obligation of the gas industry to that of the electricity supply industry, which must supply everybody, profitably or otherwise. It is not in the general interest of the fuel economy of the country for the gas industry to be even more loosely controlled in this re-respect.
As an advocate and defender of the nationalisation of basic industries over many years, I have never believed that they should be run as a social service either in whole or in part. The responsibility for protecting and caring for our less fortunate citizens must be that of the community as a whole and not that of the gas and electricity industries, if only for the good Socialist reason that it is bad for the reputation of nationalisation.
The Government have behaved badly in that social area. I cannot quarrel with the economics of the action. In the supply position in which we find ourselves, it is inescapable. I quarrel with the Government's social behaviour, as the Opposition motion states, at a time when everything else is rising in price—mortgages, rents and fares. People are suffering badly. Many hon. Members on both sides know that that is true. If the gas price increases had to come about, they should have been phased in more gradually. That

could have been done. I agree with other hon. Members that they should have been combined with a wider heating allowance—for whatever fuel is used—than that proposed by the Government to cover the needs of families with small incomes, hard-pressed pensioners and so on. That view has gained much currency this afternoon on both sides of the House. The Government should pay attention.
Also, it is now the time to step up and not reduce spending on conservation programmes. Incredible as it sounds, the Government, in their cutting spree—Governments may have spending sprees, but this is a cutting spree—have included as a victim of their economies many aspects of the "Save It" campaign, to which the previous Administration were committed. Will the Minister, when he replies, confirm that the Government have scrapped a project to establish local centres to advise on insulation of homes?
If ever there was a time when a programme of that kind was needed, it is now. We should realise that once we have cut our conservation efforts—never very good—we shall have slipped far below what is being done in France, Germany and throughout much of the Continent. I urge the Government to think again, because this is a false economy that should not be proceeded with.

Mr. Rost: The hon. Gentleman will know that I share his concern about investment in conservation. Does he agree that the best incentive to more investment in conservation is through the price mechanism, which is exactly what a more realistic price for gas will achieve?

Mr. Palmer: I must refer the hon. Gentleman to what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton who seemed to think that people would pay in any case if they were to remain warm. In other words, these proposals are not very price-elastic. In that respect, I am more in agreement with the hon. Member for Honiton than I am with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost). I have made my points, and I shall soon sit down.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has sat down. Has the hon. Gentleman sat down?

Mr. Palmer: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise. Perhaps I confused the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies).

Mr. Rees-Davies: I wanted to invite the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) to enlarge on one matter with which he dealt. I think that he was still standing at the time. He was sort of suspended in mid-air. The hon. Gentleman has great experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on science and technology and, indeed, is at the present time the leader of his own group on the energy Select Committee. He raised the question of heating allowances and other items that those in need ought to receive, and suggested that they should be much widened. From his experience, does he think that it would be useful if the Social Services Committee considered this as a matter of urgency in order to decide whether the question of need and heating allowances should be considered, and whether that type of approach—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must make an intervention, not a speech.

Mr. Palmer: I would have thought that that was a matter for the Select Committee in question, but I would be in favour of it.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Since 1977, the British Gas Corporation has conducted an intensive campaign to encourage people to switch to warm natural gas. Many people with perfectly good oil or coal-fired burners switched over. They took out loans and used their savings to switch home and water heating appliances to gas on the strength of the availability of cheap gas.
Overnight, the Conservative Government made a statement to the effect that in one year those people would have to face a 29 per cent. increase in those costs. Of course gas prices must go up—no one disputes that—but one wonders why the increase is so savage. I agree with Opposition Members that this is a savage increase in the first year of a three-year phase. There is no doubt about that.
The British Gas Corporation has perhaps been less than honest in its advertisements, because someone at home could not expect to know that the United Kingdom shelves were rapidly running dry. He could not know that we already buy gas from Norway. He could not know that the Morecambe field will not be opened until 1985–86. He could not know that we are going into partnership with the Norwegians, on a ratio of 15·1 per cent. British and 84·9 per cent. Norwegian. He could not know that we shall be in competition with France and Germany. The State and the British Gas Corporation have known those things for a long time, but the people who trusted the advertisements on television, and who switched over to cheap gas, did not.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have advanced financial arguments. That does not impress the person at home. It worries the elderly and the disabled, but at least it now seems that they will be protected by a Conservative Government, as one would expect. It is a pity that the Government's proposals in that regard were not introduced today.
I have based my figure on a Library 1977, 1 million more people applied for gas and were connected to it. They prided themselves that they had been clever enough to select gas as their heating source. Many householders have committed themselves to gas for their heating, water and cooking purposes, and some will have to pay £100 more on their first annual bill. The figures that were quoted earlier were quite unacceptable. The people who will be forced to pay the lion's share of these gas increases are the people who are paying the lion's share of mortgage increases, income tax and domestic rate increases. Many are Conservative Party supporters.
I have based by figure on a Library quotation, which I analysed, and that was the average. When hon. Members talk about the average gas user, they usually mean someone who has an Ascot water heater in his kitchen, but I can tell the House that some people will be faced with very high bills.
We have criticised the Labour Opposition on many occasions and have said that on many issues they have done too little too late.

Mr. Skeet: I just happen to have pencilled down the fact that a consumer of


1,200 therms will pay only 17p per therm in London but 33·5 in Dusseldorf and 43p in Copenhagen. Therefore, I do not believe that the United Kingdom consumer has done badly, and I do not believe that the consequences indicated by my hon. Friend will occur.

Mr. Dickens: I am not impressed by my hon. Friend's argument about what people pay in other countries, because they do not pay as much tax as British people do or pay many of the high prices. They also earn more money than people in this country. Therefore, my hon. Friend should not throw that argument at me.
On many occasions, we Conservatives have said too little too late. In this instance, the State has a moral obligation. It does not matter that Labour Members have a cross to bear or that we have a smaller cross to bear. It was the State and the British Gas Corporation which hoodwinked the general public. We Conservatives now have a moral obligation to do something about it. I believe that the first year's increase should be scaled down tremendously, because at present we are guilty of imposing too much too quickly.

Mr. George Foulkes: It is always a pleasure to follow a vigorous speech such as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens). On behalf of Labour Members, I assure him of a warm welcome in the Opposition Lobby this evening.
I do not propose to concentrate on the economic and financial arguments, but rather to deal with the social consequences of the increase in gas prices. In my view, they will be disastrous. The spiral of inflation that will result from this increase will in itself affect the elderly, the disabled and the poor. The gas price increase alone is enough to worry them. I compare the speedy introduction of the gas price increase by the Government—truly it was a "high-speed increase", to use the terminology of the gas publicity advertisers—with the tardy, not so speedy announcement of any help for the disabled, elderly and poor.
The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave)—as he was speaking,

the Chamber filled with Conservative Members and I almost began to believe in reincarnation—said that it was a pity that the Government did not make a simultaneous announcement about the poor, the elderly and the disabled. It is much more than a pity. It is tragic and disastrous. The Secretary of State may say that anew scheme is on its way, but there was a scheme for electricity discounts. There were criticisms of the electricity discount scheme, but there is an all-party motion on the Order Paper, signed by Conservative Members including the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, suggesting that the electricity discount scheme should have been expanded and developed by the Government into a fuel discount scheme, covering electricity, oil and gas prices. Instead of taking up that suggestion, the Government abandoned the electricity discount scheme and introduced an extra measly 10p increase in the heating allowance, which will benefit only those receiving supplementary benefit. Many hundreds of thousands of people who previously benefited from the electricity discount scheme will no longer do so.
What can we expect from the Government's announcement, which was anticipated by the hon. Member for Bristol, West? I do not think that we can expect very much from a Secretary of State for Social Services who tells us when the lights go out that we must clean our teeth in the dark, and who tells us not to go to the doctor until we fall on the ground writhing in agony because treatment will cost too much at an earlier stage. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell old people not to switch on their gas fires until they are really cold and shivering.
The Government's figures for hypothermia do not reveal the true picture. That is true also of the figures of the previous Labour Government. Old people are living in conditions not only below the recommended temperature for the elderly but below the temperature recommended for people who are young and relatively active. That is the situation with the current level of fuel prices, and the poor, the elderly and the disabled merely receive reassurances that at some time in the far-distant future the Government's social policy will remedy it.
What faith can those people have in the Government's social policy? What faith can they have in a social policy which abandoned the electricity discount scheme? What faith can they have in a social policy which will abandon the link between pensions and earnings? What faith can they have in a social policy which is cheating pensioners out of a week's pension which the Government are duty bound to give to them? I believe that the Government are morally and legally bound to give it because of the increase in wages above the level of inflation. What can we expect from a Government with that sort of social policy? We must increase our help to the elderly, the disabled and the needy. We must have a totally new scheme, and the Government have shown no indication or will to introduce such a scheme.
Fuel poverty is already a great problem. It has been highlighted by many voluntary organisations which have submitted evidence to the Government. Those organisations have pointed out that the effect on old people of the gas price increases will not merely be that of the increases, but will be much greater. The budget of every old person consists primarily of the cost of food, of housing—rent, mortgage, or rates, all of which are increasing—and, most important, of fuel. The cost of fuel is a major element in the budget of every old person. The gas price increases will affect them and the disabled more than they will affect others. It is no use giving vague assurances about the possibility of the Government's social policy taking account of that in the future. Old people are suffering in the cold now, this winter. We need a speedy announcement from the Government.
I turn now to two other arguments advanced by Conservative Members in justification of this unwarranted price increase. First, they say that the money generated can be used for all sorts of good and worthwhile projects. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) suggested that there would be a decrease in the public sector borrowing requirement which would benefit everyone. The Government's record so far on benefits for everyone—for example, the tax cuts—does not lead us to believe that there is anything like that in store.
It has been suggested that if we could anticipate a subsidy on other fuel to

bring down its cost, there might be some logic in that. If there was more money for the insulation scheme, to encourage people to save energy, we might have more understanding of the increase in gas prices, but the opposite is the case. The Government's insulation scheme is being cut back. All that we can expect from the Government is that any money that they can grab from the increase in gas prices will be used to improve the standard of life of those who are already wealthy, by further tax cuts.
Secondly, I turn to the argument—in which the Secretary of State seems to have great faith—that this is being done to protect our stocks. That point was dealt with on a previous occasion by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). With his impeccable, ultimate logic, he asked for whom we were preserving the stocks. If we were to take the Secretary of State's logic to its ultimate conclusion, we would use no gas and no energy. We would increase the prices so much that we would cut out their use totally. We must get the balance right, but it is not a balance that should result in this sort of doubling of prices over three years.
For those reasons, and above all for the social effect on vulnerable people, I hope that some Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, who feel strongly about the issue and who are anxious to protect the standard of life of our elderly, disabled and needy, will go through the Opposition Lobby tonight and show the Government what they think of this mean and despicable increase.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I refer to the oil-related price of gas. The wise chairman of the British Gas Corporation, Sir Denis Rooke, in a letter to me on 2 August 1979, set down principles of policy with which I totally concur. He said:
In the industrial sector most of our firm gas supplies are sold on individually negotiated contracts at prices related to the price of the nearest alternative premium fuel, which is usually gas oil. At the present time this produce is being sold to industry in the United Kingdom at net prices in excess of 28p per therm.
He continued:
Interruptible gas is sold into non-premium uses and the price is related to the price of


heavy fuel oil which is currently just below 20p per therm".
My point is that under the previous Administration these principles were being applied to the gas industry, with the consent and approval of the Ministers at that time. As these ideas are now being pursued by the present Government. I cannot see that the Opposition can have any objection to them.
At the present moment there is a broad differential between the industrial prices for gas and the domestic prices. The domestic prices are about 40 per cent. cheaper than the industrial prices. It is laid down in the Gas Act that the corporation must not discriminate in favour of or against any particular category of consumer. It has been doing this over the years. Therefore, it is only right that my right hon. Friend should rectify the position. He is doing so by putting up prices in the way proposed.
Let us bear in mind that the price of oil today is roughly $30 a barrel in the United Kingdom. If we relate it to gas, it works out very conveniently at 25·5p per therm. I fully concur with what the Secretary of State is doing. Those who have listened to the speeches made in the debate will realise that the course that he has taken is right, although I will say, in deference to all the speakers today that perhaps the presentation could have been better.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: It would be very easy today for me to take lists of statistics, as many speakers have done, but statistics can be bent in any way in order to present certain points of view.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Mabon) hit the nail on the head when he said that behind all this is the grasping hand of the Treasury and not the Department of Energy. What we are talking about with the gas industry is not just a licence to print money; it is really a licence to mint gold, because of the size of the industry and the enormous level of profits made over the past two or three years. Much of the profit is hidden by the system of current cost accounting, whereby profits of £564 million can be written down to £182 million. Here I am quoting

Kenneth Fleet, the editor of the business news section of The Sunday Times.
We are really talking about a capitalistic dream. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) pointed out that the Tory policy in the early 1970s used to be to starve the nationalised industries, to keep down their prices, and to use them as a means of keeping down inflation. Now, we have the opposite policy—to milk the nationalised industries, at least the ones that can be milked. The policy is to put up their prices not to a point that is as high as the consumer can bear but to a point that he has to bear, having no other option. Then the Government suck in the cash, but the question then is, what is to happen to the cash?
The policy of the Secretary of State for Energy, as revealed in the last few weeks, really involves a tax on gas. Although the policy is presented on the basis of the need for conservation, it really is a tax on gas. We know from the Prime Minister that she is not so much concerned with what Ministers say as with whether they do what she tells them to do. This is evident from the policy that we are seeing from the Department of Energy. The target set for the industry was 6 per cent. on turnover. It has not been changed to 9 per cent., not on turnover but on the value of the asset.
We are therefore witnessing a major shift in Government policy, and it is inconsistent in its operation. There is intervention in profitable concerns, such as British Airways and British Gas, but there is a policy of non-intervention in the unprofitable industries, such as steel. Why do we see the figure-juggling? Why is there the insistence on massive profits? Is it for the purpose of conservation or is it because the Government intend to sell the gas industry?
Ten days ago I tabled a question to the Secretary of State asking whether he had any plans for selling off any part of the gas industry. I received a quick reply, informing me that he would let me have an answer as soon as it was possible. I am still waiting for a definite answer. Perhaps I shall get one from the Minister tonight when he replies to the debate. Perhaps I can be told


whether it is the intention of the Government to sell off part of the gas industry. Perhaps that is why the Government are fattening it up, so that they will get a good price. Or perhaps they want to make a very good profit for the people to whom they sell the industry. Perhaps, again, the Government are trying to slim down the steel industry before selling it. We have been desperately trying to find out what is the Government's policy in this respect.
Is it the policy of the Government not to sell off the industry but to put a tax on gas? If it is really a tax on gas, why not be honest about it? Why not point out that all the other countries in Europe have VAT on their gas—as they do—and that, therefore, the Government propose to fall into line with them? At the time of the general election, the Conservative Party said that it would not do this, but now the Government have changed their mind about it. In effect, they are putting VAT on gas—10 per cent. now, and next year another 10 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation. What is involved is the gradual bringing of gas into the VAT range. It would be much more honest of the Government if they were to admit that this is their intention.
After all, there is a tax on petrol, and it is accepted that we have a tax on petrol. The difference is that petrol tends to be used by affluent members of the community who own cars, whereas gas is used by elderly ladies who cannot afford to own cars and who cannot afford to pay a tax on gas.
In this action of the Government we are seeing a major shift of wealth from elderly people, who will have to pay higher gas prices because of a gas tax, to the Treasury. Although the money goes to the loans board, once the Treasury gets its hands on it it will use it for some purpose of its own, as we have seen in the past with the road fund tax and petrol tax. It is a shift in tax gathering, via the gas industry, so that the money goes from old ladies to the Treasury.
If the Government had had the courage to put 10 per cent. VAT on gas—which is what this is—there would have been a massive outcry, and they would have been accused of going back on their

election promises. As I am reminded, there is an outcry anyway. In effect, that is what the Government have done, although by using this method they have sought to avoid an outcry.
The effect on the poor has already been well dealt with, but there is also the effect on industry. Again, this has been wrapped up to a great extent. It must be remembered that industries such as glass, chemicals, clay and pottery use a great deal of gas. It is no good saying that they can suddenly switch to conservation. They cannot do that. They can use less gas only by sacking people or by having a massive reinvestment programme.
I have some figures that have been given to me by the Chemical Industries Association. At April 1979, the United Kingdom industries were paying 14·5p per therm, compared with a figure of 13·4p for West Germany, 13·4p for France, 14·9p for Italy, 13·1p for Belgium, and 12·2p for the Netherlands—all more or less in line. Then comes a swingeing gas price increase for our industry. It is not simply a 17 per cent. plus 10 per cent. increase for industry; it is a free market, and some industries are having to pay a 50 per cent. increase. Many of our competitors are not having to pay that sort of figure.
Our foreign competitors pay for their gas on three-year to five-year contracts. Our industries tend to be on 12-month contracts. Suddenly, in the space of a few months, the gas-using industries are having to pay 50 per cent. more for their gas. A firm in my constituency—it will not mind if I mention it—was paying £2 million a year for its gas. The firm, Harworth Glass Bulbs, is now having to pay £3 million a year—a massive increase. On top of that, the value of the £ sterling has gone up. The company's export trade has been almost ruined within a few months. It exports 50 per cent. of its products, and within a few months, because of the massive cost of gas and the rise in the exchange rate of the pound, it has been knocked sideways.
I cannot see any point in conserving gas supplies under the North Sea if it means ruining industry. That is a false economy. I do not think that the Government have done any sums relating to the effects of inflation on exports or on


the capacity of firms to stand up to swingeing increases of this sort.

Mr. Eggar: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the British Gas Corporation is following the same pricing policy for industrial consumers as it has always followed?

Mr. Ashton: If that means keeping pace with oil, it means that the Arabs are fixing the costs of our industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] As has been argued already, one of the best ways of keeping down the international price of oil is to keep down the international price of gas. If oil has a competitor, that will help to deflate the oil economy. That is a very valid point.
Let us look at the conservation argument put forward by the Government. If they wish to conserve energy, why is there no crash programme to install double glazing and insulation in the roofs of council buildings and council housing? I know that grants are available, and they are very often taken up, but old ladies cannot scramble up ladders to insulate the loft. They need somebody to do it for them.
There is no pressure on councils to undertake this sort of work. It is work that would create a large number of jobs. No massive capital investment would be needed if councils decided to introduce a programme to install double glazing and insulate the lofts of council properties. If it is necessary to put a few shillings on the rent to pay for it, the tenant would at least get that money back through decreased heating costs. Those on rent rebate might not have to pay anything towards such a programme. It would be a good, self-financing scheme.
No such ideas have come from the Department of Energy. The reason is that the argument for increasing the price of gas is not a conservation argument but a tax argument. The Government are hiding behind OPEC and using the increase in the price of oil as an excuse to raise cash for the Treasury to use in cutting taxes for the rich in 1982 and 1983. There is no doubt about that.
Those who are concerned with the old and the cold will tell the Government that 10 per cent. of pensioners are in serious danger of hypothermia because they cannot afford to heat their homes or even

their bedrooms. One-third of all old-age pensioners' bedrooms are heated to less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit. It will not just mean 56p on the weekly gas bill, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said. People do not pay for their gas weekly. They receive big bills in the winter and small bills in the summer. It is highly probable that the 56p per week will mean £18 on the winter gas bill, and an increase of £18 is a great deal of cash for a pensioner.
We may hear more in the Budget or over the next few months about the scheme that has been hinted at, but if it is anything like the scheme brought in to replace the electricity discount scheme in November it will, as usual, be some sort of sham scheme designed to help a select few elderly people so that the Conservatives can at least salve their consciences.
I hope that all hon. Members will support our motion, for the reasons that I have outlined. We believe that the action of the Government is a transfer of wealth from the ordinary people, via a gas tax, to the Treasury, so that tax cuts can be paid out to friends of the Conservatives in future years.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Norman Lamont): I intended to begin tonight by saying that the whole House had expressed concern about the rising gas prices, but the tears have been crocodile tears, because the Opposition Benches have been empty for much of this debate. We never had any doubt about the concern that our announcement would cause. That is why we spelt out the consequences for three years with a frankness that is disturbing to the "week is a long time in politics" mentality.
The reasons why the price increases and financial targets are necessary were spelt out both in the announcement made to the House and in the speech made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. They were not seriously challenged by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), let alone in the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Unpalatable as they may be, the facts stare us in the face.
First, new supplies of gas from the northern North Sea will be increasingly


expensive—perhaps six or seven times as expensive as at present. As my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) pointed out, those contracts are likely to be increasingly related to the price of oil, a point which the right hon. Gentleman might have taken into account when he was making his strictures about the impact of the price of oil on gas prices.
Secondly, domestic gas barely covers its costs. Although domestic gas accounts for 50 per cent. of the business of the British Gas Corporation, this year it will probably make no contribution to profits. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) took issue with this point and rightly pointed out that when attributing losses and profits to particular divisions of a business much depends on how one attributes the overheads and other costs. That is right. The practice of BGC has not only been approved by auditors but has been the subject of investigation by the Price Commission, which came to the same conclusion.
A further point that I put to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is that the trend, on the same accounting basis, is clear; the sort of profits made on domestic gas sales two years ago are no longer being made. Two years ago, 50 per cent. of the Gas Corporation's profits came from domestic sales. That is not so today. If there is not a substantial price increase, on the basis of the accounting practices which the corporation has pursued in the past there will be a loss on domestic gas sales. I cannot believe that anyone in the House, at a time of increasing awareness of energy problems and rising energy prices, would think it a wise and prudent policy to sell gas to domestic users at a loss.
Thirdly, while domestic gas prices have been frozen for two years—and there will have been an increase of only 8 per cent. between 1 April 1977 and 31 March 1980—the retail price index will have increased by about 35 to 40 per cent. Though domestic gas prices have been frozen, industrial prices have definitely not been frozen, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter.
Many industrial firms are paying up to 50 per cent. more for gas than is paid by the domestic consumer. This has brought the corporation close to a breach of its statutory obligation not to dis-

criminate between different categories of user.

Mr. Torney: I believe that the Minister has sat through the entire debate. He talks about no profits in the gas industry, but did he not hear the excellent early part of the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), in which he seemed to elucidate details of the considerable profits that were being made in the gas industry?

Mr. Lamont: Indeed, I heard that clearly. I listened to it more closely than the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) seems to have listened to my comments on it.
While industrial prices have accelerated, domestic demand has increased enormously. Nearly 1 million new customers have been supplied with gas during the past three years, while at the same time industry has been paying very high prices and been unable to obtain the gas that it wants and needs.
I was astonished when my right hon. Friend made his announcement in the House and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) commented on it by referring to the damage that it would do to industry. The right hon. Gentleman could not have got it more wrong if he had tried. It is industry that is complaining about the enormous difference between domestic and industrial prices. I cannot believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends think that it would be right for domestic consumers to be subsidised by the wealth-creating private sector. If the right hon. Gentleman had his way, there would be plenty of centrally heated houses in which the unemployed could live. The implication of his policy is that industry would have supplies diverted from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton suggested that the Government should impress upon consumers the great benefit that gas has been to them. He is right. A pensioner today needs to spend less of his income on gas to heat his house than he did 10 years ago. The real price of gas has fallen steadily during that time.
Even after three years of real price increases, gas will still be far and away the best and most attractive buy for the consumer. Regular surveys are conducted on the average costs of heating a three-bedroom house, and the latest figures


show that the annual bill for oil is £272, for electricity £253, for coal £222, and for gas £157. Even after three years of real increases of 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation, gas will still be cheaper than any other fuel—even coal, which may dismay Labour Members—by a distinct margin. Gas is still a good buy for the consumer.
The Government recognise that the correction of years of under pricing will cause problems for poorer consumers. Economic pricing and social policy must go hand in hand, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged at a recent Question Time the need for greater help for the elderly. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, our policies are being reviewed, and we hope to make an early announcement in good time for people to make their plans for the winter.

Mr. Rees-Davies: This is a matter on which many of us feel strongly. Will my hon. Friend consider producing a scheme that shows what is desirable to meet the needs of the elderly and the disabled, particularly in relation to the heating allowance, so that we may have an opportunity to consider it and make suggestions before it has statutory effect? If I do not have that assurance, I shall try to ensure that the Select Committee on Social Services considers the subject a matter of emergency. It is an issue of the greatest importance to the nation as a whole.

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. It is important that we should consult hon. Members and, as we have indicated we wish to do, the welfare organisations and others with particular knowledge who have been energetic in these matters. We shall consult, and if my hon. and learned Friend has any suggestions we shall be happy to receive them.
On the radio this morning the right hon. Member for Devonport cast grave doubts on the Government's sincerity and questioned why, if we intended to help those in need, we scrapped the electricity discount scheme. We did that because it was a pretty lousy scheme. It gave only a small amount of help, far less—six or seven times less in individual cases—than the replacement scheme offers, and

it was of no use to gas consumers. It would not have helped them one bit.
The U-turn watchers in the House have suggested that the Government's policies towards the Gas Corporation contrast with our attitude towards other nationalised industries, such as the steel industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) called that the "silly-clever" argument. In the mouth of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw it sounded a lot more silly than clever. It is not an argument to say that because a Government set a financial target for an industry and leave the management to achieve it, that constitutes a new sort of intervention.
The White Paper of the previous Government suggested that Governments ought to set three-year financial targets for the nationalised industries. We have to set the Gas Corporation a financial target. Anyone who seeks to deny the Government that opportunity is suggesting that the corporation should set its own target.
In setting the target, we have assumed that the contribution to the profits of the corporation will return by the third year to the same division between domestic and industrial contributions as two years ago, before the previous Government interfered through the imposition of price freezes.
It has also been suggested that there is a major disagreement between the corporation and the Government. My right hon. Friend made it clear earlier that the corporation accepts both the magnitude of the under pricing that needs to be corrected and that there must be a price increase of the amount proposed for this year. The corporation says that it is necessary because of the danger of interruptions to supply. That is not the Government's opinion; it is the opinion of the Gas Corporation. It does not believe that it could cope with peak demand to a greater extent by switching away from the interruptible contracts. During recent winters there have been enough risks to hospitals and schools from the switching away of gas because of accelerating demand from the domestic consumer.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the impact of the Government's


philosophy in economic terms on the corporation's bargaining position with oil companies, particularly in relation to the North Sea?

Mr. Lamont: The corporation's negotiations on the price at which it buys gas from the North Sea are confidential matters for its management. However, it is an open secret that the contracts are increasingly related to the price of oil. That happens already, and nothing said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or announced by the Government will change that situation.
The Government reject accusations that what is being proposed is a tax. I understand why the Opposition are so keen to make that accusation, because they did precisely what they accuse us of when, in 1977, they increased gas prices by 10 per cent. more than the Price Commission recommended, and did so purely to satisfy the IMF and reduce the public sector borrowing requirement.
We have freely admitted that we are pleased—in our current financial situation it is enormously helpful—that the Gas Corporation is contributing to a reduction in the public sector borrowing requirement, but that is not the reason for the changes. They were made for reasons of energy policy.
Much has been made of the profits of the Gas Corporation. I have already said that domestic gas is not contributing to those profits, but the point is that costs ought to determine the price that British Gas charges for its products, and there is no doubt that the costs of gas are increasing steadily.
A number of my hon. Friends have put forward the arguments for a gas tax. We note their suggestions, though if there were a gas tax we should have to be careful that it was not imposed on top of the price increases.

Mr. Ashton: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he say whether it is the Government's intention to sell off all or part of the industry?

Mr. Lamont £: The hon. Gentleman has misrepresented the answer that I gave him. I do not know why he did not just read it out. There is a lot of difference between answering as he described it,

"I will communicate with the hon. Gentleman shortly", and saying in a perfectly standard way "I have no plans at present to denationalise the British Gas Corporation." It seems an extraordinary piece of misrepresentation by the hon. Gentleman. The Government are not intending to denationalise the British Gas Corporation, and for the hon. Gentleman, who is causing great dissension in the ranks of Tuscany behind me, to suggest that is, I fear, to fall back upon his talents as a novelist. It is a work of pure fiction.
It is interesting that the Opposition have not been able today to put their full weight against the necessity for a rise in gas prices. The right hon. Member for Devonport even managed to attack the Government for not having put up the gas prices in June. It is difficult for the Opposition to attack these rises when in 1975 they put up electricity prices by 28½ per cent. It is difficult for them to attack economic pricing when they repeatedly defended it in office. It is difficult for them to attack the need for targets when it was their White Paper which called for them. They quibble about the amounts of the increase, but the amounts of the increase were recommended by their own creature, the Price Commission, in its last desperate gasp of life. And now they have the effrontery to criticise the timing of the increase, when they doubled electricity prices in two years. Then, of course, they introduced the electricity discount scheme, long after the massive rise in electricity prices.
This country is extremely fortunate in the fact that it is very well endowed with energy supplies, but this country is not on the Persian Gulf. Perhaps if we were Saudi Arabia or Venezuela, with reserves of oil and gas stretching on for years and years, we could afford to subsidise the domestic consumer, subsidise the motorist or divert supplies from industry. But we are not in that position, and all the best estimates are that supplies of oil and gas in this country will run down in the 1990s. It would be folly for this country, at this of all times, with all our problems, to waste and burn up one of the few advantages that we have.
The Government were elected to face the economic and commercial realities, and in this case if we do not face the


consequences they will face us, in terms of distortions, shortages and waste. It would be wholly inconsistent and wholly out of line with the purposes and objectives of the Government if we were to shirk this decision today. The Govern-

ment have accepted reality, and I hope that the House will do likewise.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 305.

Division No.146]
AYES
[7.00 pm


Abse, Leo
Evans, John (Newton)
McKelvey, William


Adams, Allen
Ewing, Harry
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Allaun, Frank
Field, Frank
Maclennan, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan
McMahon, Andrew


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNally, Thomas


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McWilliam, John


Ashton, Joe
Ford, Ben
Magee, Bryan


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foster, Derek
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Foulkes, George
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Beith, A. J.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Freud, Clement
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Meacher, Michael


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
George, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bottomley, RI Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mikardo, Ian


Bradley, Tom
Ginsburg, David
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Golding, John
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Gourley, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Graham, Ted
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred(Wythenshawe)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles(Openshaw)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon


Buchan, Norman
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Morton, George


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens, Stanley


Campbell, Ian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Ogden, Eric


Canavan, Dennis
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Halloran, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Haynes, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cartwright, John
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Palmer, Arthur


Clark, Dr David(South Shields)
Home Robertson, John
Park, George


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Homewood, William
Parker, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hooley, Frank
Parry, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Horam, John
Pavitt, Laurie


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Pendry, Tom


Conlan, Bernard
Howells, Geraint
Penhaligon, David


Cowans, Harry
Huckfield, Les
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Crowther, J. S.
Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Race, Reg


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Radice, Giles


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Janner, Hon Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Dalyell, Tam
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Richardson, Jo


Davidson, Arthur
John, Brynmor
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Robertson, George


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)


Deakins, Eric
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rooker, J. W.


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dixon, Donald
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Dobson, Frank
Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Dormand, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


Douglas, Dick
Lamond, James
Sever, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Leadbitter, Ted
Sheerman, Barry


Dubs, Alfred
Leighton, Ronald
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Mrs Renée


Eadie, Alex
Litherland, Robert
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Eastham, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silverman, Julius


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCusker, H.
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Soley, Clive


Ennals, Rt Hon David
McElhone, Frank
Spearing, Nigel


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McKay, Allan (Penistone)
Spriggs, Leslie




Stallard, A. W.
Torney, Tom
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Steel, Rt Hon David
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Stoddart, David
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Winnick, David


Stott, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Woodall, Alec


Strang, Gavin
Watkins, David
Woolmer, kenneth


Straw, Jack
Weetch, ken
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wellbeloved, James
Young, David (Bolton East)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Welsh, Michael



Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)



Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Whitlock, William
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. James Tinn.


Tilley, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Dykes, Hugh
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Alison, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Ancram, Michael
Eggar, Timothy
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Arnold, Tom
Elliott, Sir William
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Aspinwall, Jack
Emery, Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Eyre, Reginald
Knox, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lamont, Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lang, Ian


Bell, Sir Ronald
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Bendall, Vivian
Farr, John
Latham, Michael


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fell, Anthony
Lawrence, Ivan


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lawson, Nigel


Best, Keith
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lee, John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lester, Jim (Beston)


Blackburn, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Blaker, Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Body, Richard
Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Loveridge, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Marcus
Luce, Richard


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lyell, Nicholas


Bowden, Andrew
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McCrindle, Robert


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Macfarlane, Neil


Bradford, Rev. R.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
MacGregor, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Brinton, Tim
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Brittan, Leon
Glyn, Dr Alan
McQuarrie, Albert


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Goodhew, Victor
Major, John


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Goodlad, Alastair
Marland, Paul


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Buck, Antony
Gray, Hamish
Mates, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Greenway, Harry
Mather, Carol


Bulmer, Esmond
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mawby, Ray


Burden, F. A.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Butcher, John
Grist, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Butler, Hon Adam
Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Patrick


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mellor, David


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hannam, John
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Channon, Paul
Haselhurst, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Hastings, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Churchill, W. S.
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Moate, Roger


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hawksley, Warren
Molyneaux, James


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heddle, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Cockeram, Eric
Henderson, Barry
Moore, John


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Cope, John
Hicks, Robert
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)


Corrie, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Costain, A. P.
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Mudd, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Hooson, Tom
Murphy, Christopher


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Peter
Myles, David


Crouch, David
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neale, Gerrard


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Needham, Richard


Dorrell, Stephen
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nelson, Anthony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael


Dover, Denshore
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Newton, Tony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Normanton, Tom







Onslow, Cranley
Royle, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, John (Harrow, West)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Scott, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trippier, David


Parkinson, Cecil
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Trotter, Neville


Parris, Matthew
Shelton, William (Streatham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Patten, John (Oxford)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Viggers, Peter


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael
Waddington, David


Pawsey, James
Silvester, Fred
Wakeham, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Sims, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pink, R. Bonner
Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Pollock, Alexander
Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Porter, George
Speller, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Spence, John
Waller, Gary


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Walters, Dennis


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Ward, John


Prior, Rt Hon James
Sproat, Iain
Warren, Kenneth


Proctor, K. Harvey
Squire, Robin
Watson, John


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Raison, Timothy
Stanley, John
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Rathbone, Tim
Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Stevens, Martin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Whitney, Raymond


Renton, Tim
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Wickenden, Keith


Rhodes James, Robert
Stokes, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Strading Thomas, J.
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Tebbit, Norman
Younger, Rt Hon George


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Temple-Morris, Peter



Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rossi, Hugh
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Rost, Peter
Thompson, Donald
Mr. Anthony Berry

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).

Resolved,
That this House recognises the inevitable need for domestic gas prices to rise bearing in mind that no profit is now made on domestic gas sales, while industry goes short of gas; welcomes the Government's determination not to evade or disguise economic realities; and believes that the Government's stated intention to review the whole range of fuel assistance offers much the best basis for helping the old and those in need in an era of high energy costs.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill: —

Committee

1.— (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 4th February 1980.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 4th February may continue until 11 pm whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 5th February 1980.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion uider a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the

Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall


forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the

House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Education (No. 2) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Any debate on a timetable motion invariably causes a good deal of indignation from the Opposition when it is debated on the Floor of the House. That indignation is usually found to be largely synthetic and totally unjustified. I am bound to say that, in so far as Labour Members may attempt to raise any indignation this evening, they could not find an occasion upon which it would be more synthetic or unjustified. Indeed, the absence of Opposition Members supports the need for tonight's motion.

The Bill has already been in Committee for about 82 hours. It was clear


that, from the outset, the Opposition were determined to get a timetable motion on the Bill. They have brought the motion on themselves. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) appears to look upon the achievement of the guillotine measure as a form of virility symbol. The real reason is that, having allowed the first Education Bill to go through with reasonable debate, he was so attacked by many of his hon. Friends, that he has had to show his mettle to his friends on the Left wing on this occasion.

I believe, as I shall show, that from the outset of the Committee stage the hon. Member for Bedwellty was determined to have a guillotine debate. He believed that it would give him an opportunity to make some great, flamboyant and histrionic speech instead of bothering himself about any detailed discussion of the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Beith: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I shall not give way at this stage.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: I shall give way in a moment. I do not dispute that this is an important Bill. Equally, as far as the Government are concerned, it is an urgent Bill. That is why the Bill was introduced in October. That is why it had its Second Reading on 5 November that is why it was the first Bill to go into Committee at the end of the Summer Recess.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Carlisle: There is no doubt that, given reasonable speed, there is ample time for the Bill to have a proper Committee stage, without resort to a timetable motion.

Mr. Beith: The Secretary of State has talked about flamboyant speeches and synthetic indignation. The Leader of the House, who was formerly a spokesman on education when the Conservative Party was in Opposition, tabled 103 new clauses to the Labour Government's Education Bill. Would he make the same comment about those actions?

Mr. Carlisle: I am bound to confess—if my right hon. Friend the Leader of

the House will forgive me—that I do not normally read his speeches at a later stage or use them for such purposes. However, I suspect that we shall get, as in all timetable motions, a considerable degree of synthetic indignation tonight.
The Bill went into Committee, after Second Reading on 5 November, and it has been given ample time to complete its Committee stage. The hon. Member for Bedwellty has a record as regards timetable motions. I have consulted the record. While speaking on proceedings in the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Bill in 1975, he said:
Our debates on guillotine motions usually arise as a consequence of parliamentary mischief, either by a contemptuous Government…or by a verbose Opposition."—[Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 119.]
There is no doubt that this guillotine motion is the result of a verbose Opposition.
The Bill contains 37 clauses. Some of those clauses are controversial. I concede that some of them are extremely controversial. However, many of them are not controversial and are based on the previous Labour Government's Bill of 1978. Consequently, many of those clauses were debated at that time.
The Bill has already been in Committee for some 82 hours. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced the intention to move the timetable motion, the Committee had reached clause 17. The proposals that I shall outline shortly will allow the Committee—in all—over 100 hours on the Bill. The Education Act 1944—probably the cornerstone of educational legislation in Britain since that time—had 120 clauses and eight schedules, yet it went through the whole of its Committee stage on the Floor of the House in 14 sittings. Everyone had an opportunity to speak in the course of those 14 sittings. That shows the length of time that has been taken unnecessarily on the Bill.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Secretary of State recognise that whilst the Education Act 1944 was passed by the great majority of the then Tory Government, the present Government are now busy tearing up the same Act? That is why the Bill has taken up so much time.

Mr. Carlisle: I realise that we now have a majority of over 50 hon. Members. We therefore have a responsibility to get our legislation through. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] During the Committee stage, the Opposition have not been at all interested in debating individual clauses.

Mr. Beith: That is rubbish and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Carlisle: I shall prove it. Much time has been taken up on totally different issues. Over two full sittings were taken up in debating matters of procedure before the debate on clause 1 could start. A sittings motion debate took four hours. A motion was moved by the Minister for the convenience of the Committee concerning the order in which matters should be considered. That motion took an additional one hour and ten minutes. Five hours and ten minutes elapsed before a word of debate was heard on any part of the Bill.
Six hours were taken up in general debate on points of order. I concede that I asked for this to be checked for me, but the Chairman of the Committee intervened on 48 separate occasions during the Committee stage. He had to call Opposition hon. Members to order and point out that their debates on those points of order were irrelevant to the issues under discussion.
On 15 January the Opposition took up one and half sittings—three hours and 40 minutes—on a point of order that was totally irrelevant. The point of order concerned whether the Department of the Environment should issue a directive to local authorities allowing them to speak and vote on matters involving school meals and school transport. I accept the importance of that issue. However, if it had any relevance to the Bill, it would have concerned the clauses that dealt with transport and meals. As it was, it took up one and a half sittings which should have been devoted to the assisted places scheme. Within half an hour of those points of order being raised, the Minister made it clear that he would make a statement to the Committee at the earliest opportunity.
Finally, as regards the reason for this debate, I shall use one other example.

Clause 1 is a simple clause. It deals with
the change of nomenclature".
That simply means changing the names of the members of governing bodies of primary schools from "managers" to "governors". It is totally uncontentious. The clause is identical in wording to the previous Labour Government's clause in the 1978 Bill.
On that occasion the whole clause went through in five minutes. On this occasion it took four hours and 30 minutes to make that single change. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was a member of the Committee on both occasions. However, whereas he did not feel it necessary to intervene on the first occasion, he found it necessary to make a speech of one hour and 45 minutes on this occasion. Whereas in the 1978 Bill—in similar circumstances—clause 2 was reached in 10 minutes—

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) called my hon. Friend a "Trotskyist". Will he please withdraw that remark?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. Nothing has been heard at this end of the Chamber.

Mr. Flannery: Everyone round here heard it. They all heard it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Even if the word had been heard at this end of the Chamber, it would not have been unparliamentary.

Mr. Carlisle: Whereas clause 2 of the 1978 Bill was reached within 10 minutes of the Committee sitting, the same clause in this Bill took nine and a half hours to be reached. The reason is simple. We did not resort to elaborate points of order or long-winded speeches on sittings motions during the 1978 Bill.
Finally, regarding the claim of the hon. Member for Bedwellty that a timetable motion is caused by a contemptuous Government or a verbose Opposition, may I remind him about the length of his speeches. Fifteen Opposition speeches have each lasted for longer than 45 minutes. Six of them were by the hon. Member for Bedwellty and two by his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bolton, West


(Mrs. Taylor). Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Bedwellty enjoys the sound of his own voice, I believe that he is somewhat overdoing his self-enjoyment on this occasion.
During proceedings on the 1978 Bill, which is similar to this Bill in many respects, we reached clause 22 in 45 hours. After 82 hours on this Bill we have just reached clause 22.
I now turn to the need for the motion. The requirement for the Bill is clear. If local education authorities are to achieve the savings that we desire in the coming financial year, the provisions covering meals and transport should be on the statute book before the beginning of the summer term.
Although it may be a matter of contention, the Government are committed to reductions in educational expenditure in the year 1980–81. That was stated in our White Paper and in the rate support grant proposals. We are looking for reductions of £280 million against the equivalent expenditure in 1978–79, amounting to 3½ per cent. We are anxious that those savings should not be made, as far as possible, at the expense of the quality of education. We believe that over £200 million can and should be found out of the present subsidies for meals, milk and transport. It is necessary that local authorities should be free to charge for transport. Everyone accepts that the present situation is illogical. The Bill proposes that freedom, subject to the necessary safeguards for those on supplementary benefit or family income supplement.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Although the Government are committed to giving the local authorities power in that area, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that there is considerable anxiety in country areas? My amendment to clause 23 suggests that
The maximum charge of the levy for school transport should not exceed the cost of public transport for 'walking distance'.
If such an amendment were accepted, it would relieve a great deal of that anxiety.

Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware that there is a great deal of concern. It is perhaps a pity that so much time has been taken up with less relevant issues in the Bill. I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am not accusing the Secretary of State personally, but is he aware of the cavalier manner in which his fellow Ministers have handled the objections of many thousands of Catholics in the diocese of the Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle? I sent his Department the first tranche of about 100 letters, and the Minister of State in another place replied with only one letter, and that was almost a circular. She ignored the letter of the Lord Bishop.

Mr. Carlisle: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is aware that I have seen the Right Reverend Bishop and had a long discussion with him, and I believe that he will accept that I have shown him every courtesy in arranging to meet him when I was in that area.
For Committee stage of the Bill the Opposition were presented with notes on clauses to assist them in their study of the effects of the Bill and with any document that came out of my Department. It cannot be suggested that my hon. Friends rode roughshod over the Committee.

Mr. David Ennals: Following the intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises that the measures that are of the greatest concern to rural areas will be least debated as a result of the motion? Is he aware that in Norfolk there is deep feeling on the issue and that the motion is riding roughshod over our concerns?

Mr. Carlisle: I recognise that these issues will be less debated than they would have been had the Opposition not chosen to spend a great number of hours on points of order and sittings motions. However, I am satisfied that the time provided by the motion is adequate for the purpose.
It is also necessary that, before the beginning of the summer term, local authorities should have wider freedom to provide such meals and refreshments as they consider appropriate and be free to charge what they think appropriate. In that way we believe that some £220 million of the £280 million saving provided for in the rate support grant can be achieved.
Local authorities should be able to introduce these measures by the beginning of the summer term, and they should be able to plan on that basis. If local education authorities are not empowered to introduce arrangements designed to bring about those savings from the beginning of the summer term, some of them may find that they are no longer able to provide transport. They will also be forced at very short notice to take other action on general education expenditure that is bound to impinge much more directly on education in the classroom.
On Second Reading the hon. Member for Bedwellty, quite unintentionally, paid me a compliment. He said:
If Governments so organise affairs as to maintain a proper relationship between reductions in the birth rate and falls in school rolls, and simultaneously make reductions to their commitments to education of a comparable nature and in proportion, that is good husbandry. However, when they do it in excess of the reduction in the number of children seeking school places, that is an act of vandalism".—[Official Report, 5 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 56.]
Our proposals for a reduction in expenditure for the year 1980–81 compared to the year 1978–79 amount to 3½ per cent. at a time when the pupil population has fallen by 4·7 per cent. On the hon. Gentleman's own test, I stand convicted of his offence of good husbandry.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Setting aside the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is engaging in more than his usual share of misrepresentation, may I ask whether the figures that he has given include or exclude the settlement that will be made over teachers' pay? Has he estimated what difference that will make to the effective cut that he is making in the finance available to local education authorities?

Mr. Carlisle: In the rate support grant, as well as allowing for 13 per cent. year-on-year inflation in wages and non-wage costs, we have also allowed for what we consider to be our best estimate of the likely, reasonable effect of the Clegg award. If hon. Members think it will be half of what is expected, it is doubtful that they know even the amount of the claim. If we achieve what we want and savings are made in the ways that we are asking local authorities to consider, it will mean not 3½ per cent. but

merely 1 per cent. of provision out of the classroom at a time of falling population. By deliberately delaying the Bill, the Opposition are putting at risk the jobs of teachers and risking damage to the standard of education in the classroom.
The slow progress of the Bill is putting the quality of education for some children seriously at risk and threatening serious disruption to local education authorities in terms of financial planning and practical preparation in the introduction of new arrangements. We are, therefore, asking the House to pass this motion, which requires the Committee to conclude its proceedings on 4 February. We believe that within that period it will be possible for the Committee to sit often enough and long enough to give adequate consideration to the remaining clauses of the Bill.
I need hardly say that if the Opposition had chosen to make more reasonable progress on some of the earlier clauses we would not be bringing forward this motion and some clauses of immediate political interest might have received fuller consideration than is now likely. I still believe that the Committee will be able to do justice to the remainder of the Bill in the time available and that the two days allocated for Report and Third Reading will give adequate time on the Floor of the House.
We have left decisions about the sittings of the Committee entirely to the Business Sub-Committee. I am sure that this accords with the wishes of the House. Beyond that, I need not refer in detail to the terms of the motion. It follows, in significant respects, the precedents in respect of timetable motions that have been established in recent years, not least by the previous Administration.
Governments have the right and the duty to get their legislation through the House and to oppose any attempt aimed at frustrating them in that aim. The provisions in the Bill—some, I concede, controversial—are in accordance with the commitments we made in our manifesto. The Opposition have made clear that they are prepared to use any tactics to frustrate the Government getting their legislation. The need to get it becomes more necessary when its achievement, in necessary time, is part of the economic strategy of the Government and when failure to


do so will rebound to the detriment of standards of education. I believe that this is a fair and reasonable measure. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I have been wondering since 3 May what particular talent equipped the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the post of Secretary of State for Education. It has taken me until tonight to discover that he has precisely that aura of bored sophistication required of members of the Cabinet who have the duty to respond to guillotine motions. The right hon. and learned Gentleman acquitted himself very well. He has all the attributes necessary to fulfil that task. It is the velvet glove task of the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, if nothing else, is a wet velvet glove. Consequently, we have had it smote across our face. It is more or less what we expected.
What we did not expect was the great inaccuracy of the Minister's understanding of what has been happening in Committee. It is, I suppose, the kind of misunderstanding that can be expected from an absentee landlord. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made no visit to the Committee. His presence has been totally unfelt by the Committee. We even adjusted our sittings, without any opposition from the Opposition Front Bench, to ensure that Thursday mornings, at least initially, were not sitting days, so that the Secretary of State should not be distracted by his Cabinet duties and could attend our Committee at other times. Unfortunately, he was not able to take advantage of that opportunity. That was a matter of considerable regret to us.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also disclosed another side to his character. He accused me of trying to maintain our activities in Committee as a virility symbol. I thought that he intended to draw the allusion—it would have been totally erroneous and synthetic—that this was to be mocked, that it was an over-performance and a misuse of the function that I had been allocated on the Front Bench. But he did not. It emerged that he was complaining about the virility of the Opposition on this Bill. His comparison with the 1978 Bill exposes the inadequacy of opposition on that Bill and the way that the Opposition, at that time, were too tired, lazy or misinformed

to fulfil at least their parliamentary duties of scrutiny. It could have been impotence. I realise, however, that the Opposition on that occasion were led by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). He is anything but impotent. Consequently, we acquit the Opposition of that charge.
We can only conclude that it is a matter of complaint. The right hon. and learned Gentleman accuses me of enjoying my own voice. [Interruption.] I see that I am in the majority in that enjoyment. Even if that were the case, I wonder whether the enjoyment and dependence upon the sound of my own voice is as extensive as the right hon. and learned Gentleman's dependence on his speech-writer. Once again, the author and the sponsor of the Bill, in the course of a guillotine debate that is supposed to rouse defensive passions, if not actual vengeance, on the Government side, had to rely entirely on the close typescript of what had been prepared for him. That is most unfortunate. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he accuses me of enjoying the sound of my own melodic, Welsh tones, will acknowledge the charge that as the Cabinet Minister in charge of the Bill, at least in title if not in practical fact in the slogging hard work in Committee, it is about time he started stringing together his own words.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: This is a total irrelevance. It should be made clear that at 4.30 pm today the hon. Gentleman and I knew that we were opening the debate. I can assure him that the notes from which I was speaking were all handwritten.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Kinnock: I see that I have scored a bull. I could inquire "Whose hand?" I shall not, however, go into that aspect. It might invite me into inquiries about whose hand lies behind not so much the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech as the Bill that he and his hon. Friends have been proposing.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Kinnock: I would give way to the hon. Lady, but time presses. Several of my hon. Friends wish to make contributions. I do not wish to attract the criticism of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for any extended contribution. He


quoted from my speech on the guillotine on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill some years ago. If he had taken the trouble to read further, he would have seen that what I was proposing, together with many of his hon. Friends, was a constitutional change in our consideration. If he or his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wishes to give time to these matters and to make a proposition, he will find enthusiastic encouragement from me.
But, given the system that exists, we have seen the Government using that system specifically for the purpose that the Secretary of State set out and showing contempt towards the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is using the strength of the majority effectively to suppress and telescope important considerations that should be taking place on the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made several mistakes of fact in the course of his description of the way in which we have conducted ourselves in Committee. He said that we debated the sittings motion for four hours. That is not so. The reason why we debated the motion to sit on Tuesday for five hours was that at the beginning of the second sitting of the Committee the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) moved exactly the same sittings motion as that moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). That caused the extension of the debate.
The Secretary of State says that he wanted to curtail that debate, but he must have known from reading the proceedings of the Committee that we would have been ready to move on to clause 1 within five minutes had he condescended to make himself available in the Committee for questioning. His absence led to the extension of the debate. That sittings motion was not only proposed by a Conservative Member; it was carried with the votes of Conservatives. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will acquit us of any unwarranted delay on that score.
After we had been poking, prodding and teasing for some time, we got an admission from the Government, in the form of the Under-Secretary, that they

had dropped an almighty and anti-democratic clanger in refusing, up to that point, to give a general dispensation to parent councillors to discuss the important matters of school meals and transport. The Under-Secretary told us that he realised that this was a matter of general concern and he promised to look into it and either make a statement or write to hon. Members about the position.
We all knew that the Under-Secretary was concerned. We instinctively understood that with his knowledge of education he might want to make a concession, but we did not understand why the Secretary of State for the Environment should be forthcoming, especially in view of his attitudes on that and other matters affecting local councils. Therefore, it was necessary for us to do our duty, not just in the context of this Bill but in the context of advancing the democratic rights of both the councillors involved and the people who elected them to become part of local education authorities. If the Secretary of State intends to comment on that matter, he should congratulate my hon. Friends on getting the undertaking from the Under-Secretary and eventually from the mountain top of the Department of the Environment, allowing councillors to fulfil their responsibilities to constituents.
As for inhibiting or trying to frustrate the Government, that is absolutely not true. We have co-operated on all the matters of sitting from the outset. On several occasions we have repeatedly asked for the extension of sittings. We have had only one all-night sitting. We have objected only to the ridiculous contortions of the Government in sitting on a Wednesday and sitting between 4 pm and midnight on Monday. Such is the panic of the Government in trying to bulldoze their legislation through the Committee. That has been done in spite of the co-operation of and offers from Labour Members. In the true tradition of the Labour Party, we have been prepared to extend sittings and to be here for the duration of the debates. I understand that it was restlessness on the Conservative Back Benches and the refusal to sit mutely for additional hours that led to our rising at 11 pm and 11.30 pm instead of going on and making progress, as we had demanded.
The Government are making this guillotine debate an opportunity to try to secure their business. They are doing so with unusual alacrity. Generally the guillotine season is somewhat later in the year. The right hon. and learned Gentleman really cannot try to impose on us the responsibility that he must bear for trying to bring about cuts policies in such time as to enable local education authorities and others to make those cuts. He introduced a Bill in November and expected the whole Committee to co-operate with the conspiracy in which he is engaged against standards of living and standards of care in this country. The last thing that we were elected to do is to co-operate in that development, and we refuse to do so.
Of course, this is the first of many guillotines. There will be guillotines on the Housing Bill, the Social Security Bill, the Transport Bill and the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill. In fact, under this Government, such is their haste, panic and frenzy to bring about their cuts, we shall have government by guillotine for the next five or six months. That is contrary to the best traditions that I had hoped the Government would uphold. Of all those guillotines, none will be as precipitate, panicky or unnecessary as this one. It seems to be in order to shoulder-charge the House of Commons into meeting the cuts deadline.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) realises what it is all about. She has tabled an amendment to our Committee proceedings, and we hope that further opportunity will be found to debate it. For a considerable period she has put herself forward as a "flat-rater" on fares. That contrasts with her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who is a flat-earther on these matters. However, I hope that the hon. Lady realises that the reason why we shall discuss her amendment in such cramped circumstances is the Government's guillotine. It is not the responsibility of the Opposition.
I should like to draw attention to the productivity and time-keeping of our Committee. We have sat for nearly 90 hours, 30 of which have been spent on clauses covering parental rights and parental choice—matters of precious importance to the Secretary of State. We

spent a great deal of time talking about the appeals procedure, which is being introduced in the face of universal opposition from everyone in local government—those who will be most affected by its provisions and by the outrageous expense that will be incurred as a consequence of the system. We have spent time discussing school closures and the provisions uprooting section 13 of the Education Act 1944, and we have given time to the novel and wholly destructive proposal to publish examination results as a means of making a judgment between schools.
In that 30 hours, 16 clauses and three schedules were discussed. That is an average of one and a half hours for each item. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a cheek to accuse us of delay when the average time taken over such important new items was only one and a half hours.
Then we came to clause 17. I understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so resentful of the time that we have taken on this. He shakes his head. Why did he make the speech that he has just made if he is not resentful about our spending a considerable time on clause 17? He knows that the whole teaching trade union movement, the Society of Education Officers and many people in the independent sector, as well as substantial parts of the Conservative Party, both in Parliament and in local government, know the dangers that will arise as a consequence of the implementation of the scheme in clause 17. As a result of that scheme, fractures will occur in both our primary and secondary school systems.
Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman provided us with regulations and specified his exact intentions under clauses 17 and 18, we could have had the technical debates and abbreviated our discussions. We would have had some meat to gnaw. But the Under-Secretary was able to offer us only the bare bones. It was by continual probing and inquiry, the introduction of examples and the reading of letters that we were able to get certain details about the assisted places scheme.
We had to take a long time the Under-Secretary was petent or coy. Wehim the details


to try to discover them by tortuous probing and questioning. If any people are responsible for the time that we have taken on clause 17, it must be the Government, the Department of Education and Science and the Secretary of State.
We read in The Times Educational Supplement last Friday and in The Guardian on Saturday that after all there is to be no assisted places scheme. Of course, the Minister could have shortened our deliberations by coming to that conclusion at a much earlier date. It would have brought cheers from my hon. Friend and from all sections of educational opinion across party lines.
The Government must acquit us of deliberately or fecklessly wasting time on the Bill. Of course, we have had to concern ourselves with the Under-Secretary himself. I have a great deal of sympathy for him because he was left naked on some of these issues. It was difficult for him. He had to present a bland, unargued and ill-thought-out series of propositions.
The incompetence was not attributable to the Under-Secretary; it is already in the Bill. That meant that he had to bear extensive questioning, though he understood the reasons for that. We also took little detours during our discussions in which the hon. Gentleman spoke of abstract art and the co-operative movement in Lancashire. There were the inevitable touches that the Under-Secretary always brings to the Committee stage.
We have for the first time in parliamentary history had the experience of a filibustering Minister. I do not mind that. The hon. Gentleman is a past-master at it. I have been amazed at his performance. I have sat aghast in admiration at his performance in Opposition. I would not wish to follow his example. I would studiously avoid it, but at the same time I cannot help admire the hon. Gentleman's capacity, both in Government and in Opposition, for extensive comment and irrelevant allusion. I have also admired his wide knowledge of the education system and his ability to allude to the He is the epic Hovis advertisement. able of drawing such allusions Indeed, if we did not know have thought that

he was living in the past. We hope that that is not the case.
Despite the interruptions, prolongations and excursions from the Bill, we cannot acquit the Government of speeding it up. We can acquit the Under-Secretary, because it has been his duty. We can certainly find the whole Back Bench strength of the Government "Not guilty".

Mr. Beith: I trust that what the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said does not imply that the Under-Secretary was anything but helpful in Committee. On many occasions his interventions during our discussion were made because he recognised that he was discovering difficulties in the Bill because of the careful debate in Committee. Time and time again he acknowledged that points that arose had been useful and necessary.

Mr. Kinnock: Indeed he did. The Under-Secretary did not regard the Committee stage as something that filled in time between Second Reading and the Royal signature. He recognised that it was a period for scrutiny and he responded to that requirement. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was right. That was always the approach of the Under-Secretary. We had one long—though not too long—contribution in Committee from the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) that was positively therapeutic. It was almost a matter of interior decoration, because the hon. Gentleman got into such a state that there was a danger of living flesh and blood exploding on the panelled ceiling of the Committee Room. It might have come to that had the hon. Gentleman not been allowed to make his very useful speech. I shall be using that speech for many years to come and I am glad that his Front Bench gave him the opportunity to make it.
The rest of the Tory Back Benchers on that Committee will have great difficulty in explaining two things to their constituents. The first is: where have they been since 13 November? Secondly, why is it that after the confusion of this Committee a new delay will occur in the writing of constituency correspondence, since that appears to be what they have been doing? In the pre-Christmas period there were instances of hon.


Gentlemen not only catching up with correspondence but sending their party invitations. I do not want to call them poodles; they are definitely not poodles. They are a little like the nodding dogs in the backs of cars. Their heads shake, but they are definitely not poodles. Nodding dogs is much more like it, as their frustration becomes more and more apparent.
A couple of weeks ago I had cause to believe it of a Tory Member to whom I choose to refer, for reasons of sensitivity, as "Deep Throat", He came to me and said "Wait until the guillotines are on. Then we will get up and speak." There is not time to say who the hon. Gentleman was. Wild horses, or nodding dogs, would not drag it out of me. We have had a similar reaction from someone to whom, out of a sense of equal felicity, I must refer as "Whispering Grass", who said that even after the guillotine was imposed he might not be allowed to speak.
If ever there were a reason for the Chiltern Hundreds, that is it, because those poor newcomers—the parliamentary virgins—arrived here with the idea that they were going to participate in democracy and become part of the deliberative process. They believed that their acquaintance with the real world outside, their recent arrival and their professional qualifications equipped them to deliberate, as in the contribution of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Green-way). I hope that they will have the opportunity at a later date to make their contributions.
We have arrived at the serious point at which the guillotine falls. We have arrived at clause 22. The guillotine falls on clauses 22, 23, 24 and 25. They are the clauses that refer to school milk, school meals and school transport in England, Scotland and Wales. They are, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the most sensitive and most political clauses. Those are the words he used. Of course, they are of major political impact because they are the clauses that impose a tax on parenthood. They are the clauses that hon. Gentleman say will give freedom to local authorities. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that whatever the Tory-controlled local authorities may have wanted before 3 May, against the background of cuts and continual economic depression and the

many other calls being made on their finances and priorities, they do not want it now. That is the freedom that they do not want. Hon. Gentlemen have given freedom in this Bill as the French and Belgian decolonisers gave freedom. They passed hasty legislation and then abandoned the colonies to their fate. That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing to the local authorities now.
When I speak of a tax on parenthood, I mean the extra £60 a year per child that some families will have to find for school meals. In September, local education authorities will increase the price of a school meal by up to 60p. I am talking about the £90 a year that parents will have to find to send primary children to school by bus, and the £133 a year that parents will have to find to send secondary schoolchildren to school by bus. Those are the products of the Bill and of the public expenditure cuts.
If we were to fight from now until the summer, or until next Christmas, and if that fight were to scrutinise and to expose the inconsistencies of the Bill, and to prolong our debates upon the remaining issues, upon the cutting of the pool in further education, upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals for making it possible to recover costs across school boundaries or not to recover such costs, and his proposals for further assistance to private schools in clause 27, we would merely be fulfilling our duty. That duty would not warrant a guillotine. The way in which we have done our duty so far has not warranted a guillotine. The co-operation that we have shown so far does not warrant a guillotine. It is with the greatest delight that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the guillotine motion.

Mr. Ennals: The Secretary of State referred to synthetic anger. That is a remark that he directed to the Opposition. I have seen about 1,000 people marching through the streets of Norwich to protest against the very issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has been rehearsing. Irrespective of whether there is any synthetic anger or feeling on the Opposition Benches, the public would be extremely critical of us if we did not fight against the Government's proposals. The people despise the Government for the measures that they have introduced.

Mr. Kinnock: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. Whatever the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels about the deportment of the Opposition in this place—he is entitled to his opinion about that, and there are certain words that he has to use on an occasion such as this—it is not our anger that he has to fear. The anger that he should fear is that which he is inspiring through his policies.
Anger is mounting outside the House. The people know that their children are not being saved in the classroom as a result of the Government's public expenditure policies. They know that the tax concessions are being turned into a mockery. They know that the cuts will fall in the most direct form in discouraging them and impoverishing them. That is why the right hon. and learned Gentleman should fear their anger.
We hope that we are giving the right hon. and learned Gentleman warning of that in articulating the feelings of those outside this place. If he does not heed our warning, he will face the much more painful consequences of ignoring us when he has to face the anger of the people.

Mr. William van Straubenzee: I am sure that I express the commiserations of the whole House when I say to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) that seldom in the history of the House have we heard a final and splendid sentence more effectively ruined by an intervention from a colleague. I see that the hon. Gentleman takes my point. I have little doubt that later there will be some discussion on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Gentleman has my fullest understanding and sympathy. With his usual skill he did his best to recover, but the careful sentence that he had ready was absolutely and totally ruined.
In his delightful and charming speech, the hon. Gentleman gave an exhibition of the two qualities that have characterised his leadership of the Opposition in dealing with the Bill in Committee. First, the hon. Gentleman has great personal charm and wit. I do not think that there is any other hon. Member alongside whom I should rather be in the convivial places where we get together than the Hon. Gentleman. I acknowledge gratefully the endless fund of ad-

mirable stories with which the hon. Gentleman has supplied me over the years, even if the audiences upon which I can deploy them are strictly limited.
That delightful and charming quality was present throughout the hon. Gentleman's speech. I acknowledge that it has been present throughout the proceedings in Committee. That has meant, among other things, that, while passions have been strong and feelings have been high, our personal relationships, on the whole, be it night or day, have remained agreeable.
The hon. Gentleman displays a remarkable strategic ineptitude. That emerged extraordinarily well in his speech. He has told the House that in controlling the Opposition team he has permitted a guillotine motion to be moved before he has discussed the most politically sensitive, in his judgment, parts of the Bill. He has conceded to the House that he has not permitted discussion on milk, meals and transport. By his own words he is undermined.
We must get the record right. The hon. Gentleman made a gracious and kindly reference to my part in the sittings motion. In Committee, Opposition Members took part in the general process of finding things to talk about. It was suggested that we should meet on Tuesdays at 4 o'clock. I strongly suspect—indeed, I know—that many Labour Members did not realise that such a motion had the effect of introducing open-ended sittings. The hon. Gentleman seems to be indicating that he did not know that. Very well, he did not realise that that was the effect of the motion.

Mr. Kinnock: I realised that it was open-ended. It was part of the Opposition's co-operation in getting adequate time for debate.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Many marks for gallantry, but the correct motion to move would have been one specifying that the Committee should sit at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and conclude its sitting at a certain hour. Instead of that, there was an open-ended commitment. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends were appalled when the Government accepted their proposition. That is what happened.

Mr. Kinnock: If the hon. Gentleman consults the Standing Orders of the


House, he will discover that it is not possible to put a limitation on a motion to meet again at 4 o'clock. By definition, such motions are open-ended.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Exactly. Surely it was on that ground even more foolish to have made the suggestion in the first place.
We are now engaging in a ritualistic dance. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman and his team. I have taken part in such operations in my time. However, a really skilled Opposition—I have taken a junior part in this, too—will so operate that they never quite permit a Government to introduce a guillotine motion. It is fascinating to me that the hon. Gentleman is confidently assuming that there will be guillotine motions on many other Bills.
In part we are discussing a criticism of the hon. Gentleman and his team, and against that background I shall make what I hope will be considered a constructive plea. I must say—one of the few advantages of getting to the stage when one has been in the House for a respectable number of years is being able to say such things—that I am convinced that the time will come when the House will regard this sort of ritual dance—it is a ritualistic dance which ever party is in power—as an anachronism.
I remember a courageous speech on a permanent timetabling provision being made by Mr. Ted Short, now Lord Glenamara. It was the more courageous because he was the Opposition Chief Whip at the time. I acknowledge that any comment made by a member of the Government is the weaker because he is on the Government side. I can claim, and show by published letters, that I have consistently held these views in Opposition as well as in Government.
Our workings in the House depend on understandings. An example of that is the make-up of the Committee whose timetable we are discussing. The Government control the majority on the Committee of Selection. It has a Conservative Chairman and a Conservative majority. In theory, it could select only Conservative Members to serve on the Standing Committee. There would be nothing in Standing Orders to prevent that happening. It would be agin the understanding of the House, and the

House would be outraged. If such a ridiculous idea were ever put forward, there would be sufficient of my hon. Friends together—if I may so arrogantly state—with myself who would not be prepared to troop through the Lobby in favour of a proposition that goes to the root of our understandings.
Is it without bounds of possibility that, in due time, we shall have a Committee broadly analogous to a Committee of Selection—a timetabling Committee of a general sort—that will meet following the agreement of the House to motions such as this? Perhaps by convention it will have a Chairman from the Opposition. Perhaps, by convention, he will be a senior Privy Councillor from the Opposition.
It would be possible for such a body to meet after the Second Reading of a Bill to consider its potence, to apply a particular judgment, to listen to all the arguments—as the Business Sub-Committee does—and to allot time to debate it. I add the proviso that it should, as the lawyers say, give liberty to apply for revision or further time if, during the course of discussions, new matter arises.
The great argument against such a proposal is that time is the only weapon of the Opposition. Tonight we are in the process, in three hours, of demonstrating how shallow is that argument. That process has been eroded over the years. A few years ago, if business stopped at 10 o'clock it was regarded as a monstrous infringement of the rights of the Opposition. Now we would regard it as astonishing if that were not to apply. No one regards it as a restriction on the Opposition.
I forecast that under one Government or another we shall have a guillotine motion which in three hours guillotines two Bills. Opposition Members know that that was not a theoretical possibility in the past. We no longer consider it a terrible argument that the Opposition would find that the principal weapon of time was being removed.
Under the scheme that I am advocating, and have advocated for so long, the Opposition would have more time. That would not be wrong. The hon. Member for Bedwellty put his finger on the matter. He did it wittily. I enjoyed the idea of myself as a nodding dog. I have been


called many things in my time, but never that. I am happy enough and broad shouldered enough to take it.
There is an element of truth in what the hon. Gentleman said. He knows that when one is on the Government Benches one is not encouraged to intervene at length. The former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), is smiling, knowing that in his day he imposed that ruling. That is not good for debate and examination in Committee. It would be far more healthy if we were to pass the timetable motion.
I say to both Front Benches that my ear tells me that, as a result of the last general election, we have on both sides of the House a considerable number of new Members who are fed up with the present Committee system and have been outraged by their experience.
I have had private conversations with hon. Members on both sides of the House, and therefore cannot, and will not, name names, but there are hon. Members on both sides who believe that the way in which we conduct our Committee proceedings is an outrage to good common sense and examination of legislation. We ought to listen to that intake of opinion as well as to the opinion of some of their seniors—seniors only in terms of service—because it would be as well to be ready to respond.
That is my non-contentious plea. Meanwhile, we must deal with the situation as it is, and we all know what it is. The hon. Member for Bedwellty and his hon. Friends were determined that this discussion should take place, whether it was to demonstrate a sign of virility or whatever. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman needs this debate for that purpose. Be that as it may, it was done so that there would be the scalp of a timetable motion.
When I was in Opposition, there were times when I used to plead passionately that when Governments introduced timetable motions the whole of my constituency would be alight. I went on to the doorsteps and asked my constituents "Have you seen that there has been a guillotine?" They were not in the least interested and thought that I was talking about something more physical. They

were very disappointed when they discovered that it was highly procedural.
The hon. Gentleman may think he has gained some might, but I believe that when he goes to Bedwellty or anywhere else he will find that people are interested in other things. So they should be, because they expect us to get on with our business in a sensible way.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), because at the outset of my brief speech I should like to say something about what he said. In a way, I suppose that we are all conditioned by our experience. I was a Government Whip for a long time and then an Opposition Whip. I must admit that timetable motion debates have never been my particular pastime.
The speeches are very much the same, whether one is in Government or Opposition. After six months in the Whips' office, I was in favour of a timetable for every Bill. I agree with the suggestion with regard to an all-party committee. The Government of the day have the right to get their legislation through so long as they can command a majority on the Floor of the House of Commons. The Opposition of the day have a right, and, indeed, a duty sometimes, to delay and certainly to use all the procedures of the House to ensure that adequate discussion takes place on particular legislation.
What disturbs me is that Conservative Members spend a lot of time going around the country protesting about the amount of legislation. Every Tory argues that there is too much legislation. They preached that to me in the Parliaments of 1964 and 1966 when I was a Government Whip. But I find that, now they occupy the Government Benches, they introduce more legislation than we ever did.
The truth is that in the modern, complex industrial society in which we live legislation will continue to be needed. We must be an organised society and planning is absolutely essential. Therefore, there will always be demands for legislation.
When I was a Minister and visited a local authority, the chief executive officer


always began the day by saying "Minister, send no more circulars, pass no more Acts of Parliament, give us time to consolidate." By the end of the day he had given my private secretary at least 20 things that he wanted doing the day before. That is the state of affairs, and that is what leads me to argue that we in Parliament have a duty to set an example. We must ensure that reasoned argument, persuasion and deliberation on our proceedings leads to satisfactory results.
All too often, as the hon. Member for Wokingham said, the only tool of the Opposition is time. Reasoned argument should prevail. Why, with these views, am I so enthusiastic about voting against the guillotine tonight? It is because I think that the Bill is important. All hon. Members know the importance that I attach to education. We are talking about the quality of life and civilised living. In whatever context we talk about the future, I believe that education must play a key role.
The Education Act 1944 was, in a sense, a consensus Act. It is irrelevant for the Secretary of State to talk about the number of hours spent in Committee in discussing the 1978 Bill. Hours and hours, days and days, weeks and weeks were spent in conferences and in delegations discussing the 1944 Bill. There were many times when we thought that the Bill would not become law, but debate continued outside the House.
I am worried about the present timetable. I told the Secretary of State this morning that I had received four important letters concerning the provisions of the Bill. Those people who wrote to me had obviously spent some time considering their case. They asked me to meet them. I shall have to reply that the Bill will complete its Committee stage within the next few days. We must not only allow time for the Committee stage of a Bill. We must allow time for people with an interest in any legislation to make their representations.
The Bill is important. We cannot exaggerate its importance. In a way, it reverses the trend that was accepted by all hon. Members, and by the education service generally, in 1944. Since then a great deal has been said about equality of opportunity. All hon. Members believe in equality of opportunity. The purpose

of the 1944 Act was to put that philosophy into practice. Labour and Conservative Members differ on the meaning of equality of opportunity. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) will agree with me that equality of opportunity is impossible unless we devote a major part of our resources to the most deprived. We cannot begin to talk about equality of opportunity without, at the same time, espousing the cause of positive discrimination.
These days we hear a great deal about young people dropping out of education. In every part of the country there are many people who have never had the opportunity of dropping in, because of home circumstances, and a number of other reasons. We know that some people have never had the opportunity of getting on the bottom rung of the ladder, never mind making progress. It is because this Bill reverses that philosophy of equality that I think it is a scandal that the guillotine has fallen.
The Secretary of State was honest enough to say that the guillotine is being used because the Bill is urgent. It is urgent in order to fulfil the Tory philosophy of cutting public expenditure. In cutting public expenditure we shall deny equality to the children of those to whom we were supposed to be opening the doors of opportunity in 1944.
The most contentious part of the 1944 Act was the settlement concerning the Church—the dual system, and so on. I have read the biography of William Temple, and I understand that reaching a final agreement was a difficult exercise. I have strong views about the dual system—about segregating children, and so on. But that is not at issue in our debate tonight, nor is it an issue in the Bill. The 1944 Act conferred upon parents the legal right to chose a denominational school. Whether we like it or not, once we have conferred that right, Parliament ought to discuss for a long time and hesitate before it upsets that right.
I notice that the Tory manifesto, in its description of its educational proposals, talks about extending the rights and responsibilities of parents. That is the great Tory aim. The Secretary of State has met, for example, the Lord Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle. No one could say that he has an axe to grind, so to speak, in finding things that are not


there. Sometimes in Opposition we are accused of making political points, and so on. The Bishop is quite convinced, along with other reasonable and sensible men and women, that the provisions of the Act will prevent parents from exercising a choice that was conferred upon them by the 1944 Act.
I share that concern. I live in a county where children in non-denominational schools travel considerable distances to school, and for denominational schools the catchment areas are always much bigger than for the non-denominational schools. The Bill will deny the right of parents to exercise a choice that was given to them by this Parliament. That is a very serious issue. I hear from my hon. Friends who are on the Committee, and I know from reading the proceedings, that discussion on those important matters has not even been reached.
I regard the meals service as an integral part of the education service. I feel very strongly about this. It has a tremendous contribution to make. To suggest that we can scrap the meals service and not affect education is to misunderstand what education is about.
We could all quote things that the Leader of the House said when he was in Opposition, just as we can quote things that were said, when they were in Government, by some hon. Members who are now in Opposition. I feel that the Leader of the House has a duty and a responsibility to the House and to the country to bring forward some of the suggestions that we are making for allowing both Government and Opposition to consider in detail proposals that will have such a profound effect on our children and on the nation generally. I therefore invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the motion tonight.

Mr. John Farr: I was not lucky enough to be on the Standing Committee, but, having heard some of the exchanges, my feeling is that the 80 hours or so that members of the Committee spent in discussion must have passed very rapidly and in a highly amusing manner. That makes me even more than usually disappointed that I was not selected in this instance.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that a good deal of time had been spent

in Committee in discussing trivia, and no doubt that was the case, but my reason for intervening briefly tonight is to point out to the House that there is a great deal left in the Bill that is not trivial. I hope that the timetable motion will not prevent a proper discussion of what amounts to the heart and soul of the Bill.
To many of us the clause which the Standing Committee has just begun to discuss, that relating to school meals, and the subsequent clauses relating to school transport in England, Wales, and in Scotland—clauses 23 to 25—are vital. Clause 26, which is concerned with day nurseries, is also very close to the hearts of many of us who have followed the subject with great attention for a long time.
The Bill consists of 37 clauses, followed by seven schedules. I hope Education Act, which my right hon. and the debate he will look at the Bill from the point of view of someone who, like myself, is not a member of the Standing Committee and who has some important points which he, or she, would like to raise during subsequent proceedings on the Bill.
On reading the sittings motion on page 2187 of the Order Paper, I see that we are to have the Report stage on 5 February, which is next Tuesday. That allows probably three or four more sittings of the Committee, after which time we must complete the Report stage and Third Reading within two days.
Clauses 23 to 25 are especially important. Clause 23 relates to school transport and dismantles part of the that when my right hon. Friend replies to learned Friend and myself have always thought of as the cornerstone of education in this country. Regardless of whether Committee time was wasted on trivia, adequate time must be given for this clause to be discussed, not only in Committee but in the House. I doubt whether one day spent discussing clause 23 and its implications on Report will be adequate.
I reluctantly accept clause 22 and my right hon. and learned Friend's recommendations on school meals. I have already discussed with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State certain amendments which a number of my hon. Friends and I would like to see made to clause 23. Many of us find ourselves


endeavouring to impress on my right hon. and learned Friend that there is great depth of feeling in rural areas that the Government's proposals in clause 23 are not acceptable and must be changed.
A number of us who are not members of the Standing Committee have been very patient in the expectation that sooner or later the Bill would come back to the House and we would have a chance to voice the fears expressed to us by our constituents. We have been content to let the Standing Committee continue in its own way, in the certain knowledge that we would have adequate discussion on Report, stretching, perhaps, over two or three days. Therefore, it is with a certain amount of foreboding and discomfort that we see that we are to have only one day for Report and one day for Third Reading of what is probably one of the most important Education Acts in the last 15 or 20 years.
Some of us would like to see clause 23 removed altogether.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: It is true that the motion refers to Report and Third Reading, but the two days provided both go to midnight. It is unlikely that the whole day will be taken on Third Reading, and, therefore, the majority of the time will be spent on Report. I should make it clear that although the motion refers to 5 February as the day on which the Bill has to be reported to the House, that does not mean that there is not an interval before Report. There will be an interval for consideration before then.

Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for trying to be helpful, as he always is, but the fact remains that Report and Third Reading have to be completed in two sitting days.
I should have thought that there was a sufficient sense of unease on the Government Benches about the proposals for school transport to make it impossible, in the normal course of events, to complete the proceedings in that time.
The implications of clause 23 are extremely serious. The clause is a departure from the Conservative Education Act 1944. I can illustrate my fears best by referring to a letter that I received recently from three headmasters in my constituency who fear that as a result of clause 23 their schools, which cater for a large number of children coming into

three small towns from surrounding rural areas, will suffer a rapid and considerable fall in rolls. They fear that the new freedom of choice that the Government propose will result in parents taking their children to school in, say, Leicester or Nottingham, where the parents work, rather than paying school transport costs of perhaps £100 or £200 a year for each child. Those headmasters fear that there will be a continuing drain on their school numbers through parents exercising the Government's proposed freedom of choice. The result will be a further drain on the countryside and its facilities and amenities.
Another serious consideration concerns village schools that have been closed on the undertaking that school transport to the neighbouring village would be made available without charge. There has been more than one recent case in my constituency of the closure of a village school being accepted reluctantly by parents on the understanding that adequate education would be provided at a neighbouring village six or seven miles away. Changing the rules of the game after the voluntary undertakings have been given is more than many of us are prepared to accept.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to bear in mind that the average wage of agricultural workers is £66·95 a week, compared with the national average of £101·90. They cannot be expected to afford up to £200 additional costs annually for each child. They are already living in disadvantaged areas where the cost of transport is high, public transport is often non-existent, the number of shops is minimal and wages are low. This further blow could be the death knell for large sections of our countryside.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) made a courageous and forthright speech, in many parts of which he could have been describing the problems in my constituency. The fears and anxieties are the same, and it is my hope and prayer that before the Division we can make an impact on the Government, who have seemed so deaf to our pleas so far.
One way in which the hon. Member could make an impact would be to vote against the motion. Although it is possible to argue in the abstract that a


guillotine may be acceptable for a Bill, even though one disagrees with some of its principles, what the hon. Member did was to point out that the motion has deficiencies. I shall refer to another that may cause problems to Conservative Members who wish to pursue amendments, perhaps even to Divisions, if the Government do not listen to the pleas that the hon. Gentleman made so eloquently.
We are dealing with a major Bill, covering many issues. It sets up a new scheme for sending to private schools pupils previously in the State system. It changes the whole pattern of school governors and school managers; it sets up an appeal system for school places; it contains all these provisions about school meals and transport; it has provisions about higher education, further education, grants for education in the Welsh language, industrial scholarships, and so on. The range is enormous. It has therefore been necessary to spend quite a lot of time discussing it.
The hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), who leads for the Government in Committee, has not stinted himself in taking time, and I do not for a moment criticise him for that, because he has been extremely helpful to the Committee. He has been courteous throughout and has been quick to point out that the debates that have taken place on many of the details have been necessary debates on issues that could present real problems to those concerned. When we have been delayed in our proceedings, it has usually been because there has been some quite difficult problem at stake, such as, for example, that the Government decided at the beginning not to put on the Bill any Minister with immediate responsibility for the issues in question. They put on the Bill, for example, the Ministers with responsibility for higher education and links between education and industry, who are responsible only for limited parts of the Bill. But we did not have on the Bill either the Secretary of State or his noble Friend in another place who has the main responsibility for schools.
That is as nothing to the major omission from the Committee. The Government sent us the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland. The Min-

ister responsible for education could not be found, and he is not here today. With obvious reluctance, which has marked every intervention that he has made in the Committee, the Scottish Health Minister was drafted on to the Committee. In all conscience, the Committee had to spend some time trying to demand that Ministers with the appropriate responsibilities were present at its proceedings.
I recall that when another Bill on education was the subject of a timetable motion the Leader of the House made this observation. He said in the course of his remarks something that I have quoted to him before: that there would not be a guillotine were it not for the incompetence of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip. He said then:
The Secretary of State never came any-where near the Committee on this vital Bill, to which he professes to attach so much importance. He not only excluded himself from the Committee but he never once came to the Committee room to see what his Ministers were doing.
I am quoting the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) speaking about a previous Secretary of State.
I could borrow the whole of the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on that occasion for this debate—I hope he would not mind; perhaps he has copyright in it—because the criticism of the Leader of the House then applies wholesale to him in this debate. And, of course, it is true that the present Secretary of State never came near the Committee.

Mr. Kinnock: Is not there one great difference between the current Leader of the House and any previous one? The present Leader of the House has profound religious convictions, which are respected throughout the House, as well as his strong affection for libertarianism, again respected throughout the House, and the clause in the Bill which he is now proposing to guillotine has led to the absolutely unremitting anger of the whole of the Catholic Church and others who believe that when choice is given choice should be fulfilled.

Mr. Beith: Frankly, I am staggered that the right hon. Gentleman is content to remain in the Government after having aroused so much anger among those with


whom he has worked and toiled in the service of God for many years, and I shall refer to that again in a moment. I really want to take a wider point arising from that.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said that as far as he was concerned this was a ritual dance, and he contributed by what he said to the prevailing cynicism about politics and politicians because he made it clear that as far as he was concerned the same speech was made in all of these circumstances, depending upon which side of the House one was on. There is no better illustration of that than that provided by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I thought that I could look to the speech that he made on the occasion I have referred to and to the circumstances of that speech to see in what circumstances a Conservative Government would think it right to apply a guillotine to a Bill. Clearly, it was not the circumstances that applied to that particular Bill, the 1976 Education Bill, so I looked for both the wider principles and the circumstances.
What are the wider principles? The right hon. Gentleman said:
Of course, it is not the number of clauses which is important but the principles which those clauses enshrine. That is the test of the importance or unimportance of a Bill. A Bill which upsets the settlement for education laid down by the 1944 Education Act—which, whatever its limitations and imperfections, lasted for more than 30 years—and which destroys the careful balance, which has been created by every Education Act since 1870, between central Government and local authorities…is surely a major piece of legislation. Whether one supports it or abhors it, it is entitled to be thoroughly examined and painstakingly assessed and discussed by the House."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1695, 1692–3.]
To what Bill could that statement be more obviously applied than this one? When we talk of the 1944 Education Act we are talking, like the right hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong), of the balance between State and voluntary schools, and between State schools and Catholic schools. There is no doubt about the view of the hierarchy in England and Wales that that balance will be destroyed by the proposals in the Bill.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I listen to whatever the hierarchy of England and Wales says, but I am not here to represent them. That is a novel constitutional doctrine. I am here to represent my constituents. The hon. Gentleman should not use me—nor should the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) use the argument because it suits him at the moment—to put forward a ridiculous constitutional doctrine. My responsibility is to my constituents and to no one else.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman is right. He has abandoned the mantle of representing Catholic opinion on this issue. We are carrying out that duty. There is no question but that he is entirely at variance with the opinion of those who send their children to Catholic schools and those in country areas. I do not quote him because he is a prominent Roman Catholic. On the contrary, I quote him because from the Opposition Front Bench he opposed a guillotine on a Bill which had constitutional implications which, if anything, may have been less far reaching than those in this Bill. Certainly they were not more far reaching than the proposals in this Bill.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not claim that the content of the Bill is the reason why there is to be a guillotine. Perhaps it is the circumstances. However, he opposed, at that time, a guillotine that was brought forward on a short Bill upon which there had been 136 hours of debate. That is far more debate than there has been on this Bill in Committee. Indeed, it was a Bill to which he had moved 103 new clauses. Far from criticising the Opposition and saying that they had taken up unnecessary time by raising unnecessary issues as he does tonight, he imported 103 new issues into the Bill. It may have been a proper thing to do. However, he cannot now claim that by scrutinising the details of what is in the Bill other hon. Members deserve to have discussion in Committee on vital matters curtailed. The right hon. Gentleman stands condemned by what he said on that occasion.
The Secretary of State said something important in his introductory remarks. Why is there this timetable motion? Why


is there a sudden rush about the Bill? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that any delay in the Bill would put children's education at risk. He said that local authorities would not be able to impose charges for school transport upon country and Catholic children. He said that they would not be in a position to make the savings that he wished to see made on school transport and meals in the current budget. By doing so, he claimed that they would force themselves to make savings in the classroom and thereby put education at risk.
What will he say to those authorities—Conservative-controlled in some cases—that have already said that they will not implement the provisions of the Bill and will not accept his advice to charge country children? Northumberland education authority has indiciated that in the coming year it will not impose a charge for school transport. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say to his Conservative friends in Northumberland "No, you must not do that. If you do. I will make you take teachers out of the classroom. If you do, I will make sure that you make savings in other quarters"?
What will he say to the Grampian region, which is represented on the Committee by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has responsibility for health? That authority decided—before the Committee had been sitting for a fortnight—that it would have nothing to do with the provisions of the Bill on school transport. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that his Scottish colleagues will breathe down that authority's neck to see how many teachers they have sacked instead of charging children to come to school? That is what the rush is about. The pressure is on to get savings in transport and meals as quickly a possible and to minimise the amount of discussion upon those matters.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman should not be surprised by the sort of anger that has been aroused. Indeed, the Leader of the House mentioned his constituency—he was right to do so. Many people in his constituency are concerned about the measures. The St. John Paine Roman Catholic school in Chelmsford is worried about the reductions in numbers which will result from school transport charges.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. Of course I have a duty to represent the views of my constituents who happen to be Catholics. As my right hon. and learned Friend well knows, I have done so vigorously, fully and frequently. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Wait and see. That is quite a different role—representing the views of those constituents—from the role that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has foisted upon me of being some sort of spokesman for the Catholic hierarchy. That is not my role.

Mr. Beith: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear my denial. I refute any claim that the right hon. Gentleman has to represent Catholic opinion on this issue. He has come to the House in order to stop us discussing the very issue which is concerning Roman Catholics.

Mr. Kinnock: He has sold them up the river.

Mr. Beith: He has tried to make sure that those of us who wish to represent Catholics in our constituencies are prevented from doing so. There will shortly be a by-election in South end. There are Catholic schools in South end that now fear that these drastic reductions will force them to close. Wherever one looks, one finds the same situation.
I hope that a few Conservative Members will also assume the mantle. We have yet to see. It is we who represent the opinion of country people and of Catholic parents. The Leader of the House wants to rush the Bill through and to curtail any discussion.
As I said earlier, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Members for Harborough and for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and of those others who are concerned to pursue amendments and put forward alternative suggestions. I respect their integrity and determination. During discussion of a previous Education Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Liberal Party moved an amendment to make a change in the business motion. That amendment was voted for by Conservative Members, including the Leader of the House. The effect of that amendment was to remove a particular limitation from the business motion. I would


have thought that now that the Conservatives are in power they might have practised the principle for which they previously voted. I would have thought that they would have modified future business motions accordingly. We find nothing of the kind. In paragraph 9(1)(c) of the business motion we find, significantly, the unamended provisions.
We all know what happens when the axe falls on a guillotined debate. A string of Government amendments is read out, and without discussion those amendments are put to the vote. That is the end of the matter. Government amendments and those moved by a member of the Government can be put to the vote. The only amendments by Labour Members, Liberal Members or Conservative Back Benchers that can be put to a Division are those that have been fortunate enough to have been the subject of the limited debate.
If an amendment—however acceptable a compromise it may represent and however much it may gain the widest support—is not moved by a member of the Government, it cannot be put to a Division by Mr. Speaker when the guillotine falls. It is almost inevitable that among the amendments that may fall victim, some will be of the type suggested by the hon. Member for Harborough. He will want to vote on a particular amendment that he and a few of his hon. Friends have tabled. The Liberal Party and the Labour Party will put down amendments. However, the only amendments that can be voted on are those that have been moved by a member of the Government. The Government will not move my amendments. They will not move the amendments of the hon. Member for Harborough. They will move their own amendments. Then they will pack up and get off home as quickly as possible. They will get away before the truth dawns.
They are rushing the Bill through in order to sting country parents and Catholic parents. They will make sure that the penalty applies to children whose sole objective is to get to school.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Would that not give an obvious opportunity to the Leader of the House—who has told us so passionately that he has argued for the Catholics—to table a

motion in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and so move it?

Mr. Beith: Without a business motion, the only way to remove those fatal words is for members of the Government to move amendments put down in our names or in the names of Conservative Back Benchers. There is very little hope of that.
I shall be interested if the Leader of the House defies the Secretary of State. I shall be interested if he moves such an amendment as that would be a strange example of the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility. The Leader of the House previously gave ready support to the principle that Back-Bench amendments should be called for Division. He will not give his hon. Friends the opportunity of a Division tonight. I know why. He wants as little discussion on such sensitive issues as possible. The right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State have discovered the most extraordinary vote loser that has ever been found by any Conservative Government. Even in Wales, where there has been flirtation with the Conservative Party, and in parts of rural England, where there has long been allegiance to the Conservative Party, there is deep and genuine concern among parents, who already have enough to contend with.
The hon. Member for Harborough mentioned agricultural workers, and the Bill is constructed to make sure that they do not benefit. There are savings in the Bill for those on family income supplement and supplementary benefits. This is the poverty trap writ large. The farm workers are just above that level, but their children often travel 10 or 15 miles to school. Their village schools were closed and they were told that their children would have transport to another area. Their children are away at school for longer periods and a midday meal is therefore more important for them than for town children. They are the sort of people the Government want to hit in the Bill. They will long have cause to resent this Government.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) referred to parliamentary virginity. If we use his yardstick and measure virtue and


virginity by verbal activity, I wonder what definition we should apply to him—a parliamentary "pro" or a Government "groupie"? I do not know. Perhaps he will tell us later.
I am a member of the Standing Committee on the Education (No. 2) Bill. It is an experience that I would not have missed. It has been at times tedious, exciting, amusing, interesting and useful. The variety is not surprising. We have spent about 82 hours in discussion, which is similar to the number of hours spent in discussing the previous Government's Education Bill in 1976.
Of those 82 hours, many have been spent on points of order. I do not suggest that they were all bogus, but, without exception, they were wordy and time-consuming. Never was a word used when a sentence could be found. Never was a sentence used when a paragraph could be used. If the Opposition had to rewrite the 10 Commandments, they would need not two but 20 tablets of stone.
This motion is fair and proper. Without it, consideration of the Bill would have dragged on and on. The Bill would have taken weeks, if not months, to reach the statute book. It would have prevented this properly and constitutionally elected Government from getting their business on to the statute book.
The obstruction would not have been democratic. It is not democratic for a minority to obstruct the business of the majority. It is not democratic to deprive the majority of their rights. The Government have a duty to treat the Opposition in a reasonable fashion. We have had over 80 hours of debate, which is sufficient, and the duty has been discharged and we have had enough hot air in Committee to refloat the "Titanic". In seeking to spin out the debate and delay legislation, the Opposition are ful-filling their first duty—the duty to oppose. But there is also a duty on them to strike a balance between the need to oppose and constructive opposition. That balance has not been evident in Committee.
There is a clear need to take note of the uncertainties that exist in the country. The debate has not been taking place in a vacuum. Local authorities, teachers and parents are aware of the Bill and of the

problems that certain Conservative Members feel will be created by clause 23. There are uncertainties. It is better that those uncertainties are moved out of the arena and resolved. Local authorities need to formulate policy. They have to make plans for the next school year. I do not see how this can be done unless the matter is clearly resolved and this legislation becomes law.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bedwellty is not in his place. He said earlier today in Committee—this may not be an exact quotation—that the victims of foreshortened debate are those who have to administer the law. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He has grown old in the discipline and service of his party. His experience encompasses many a parliamentary strategem. It ranges over a number of years in the way and method that a Government get their business on to the statute book.
However, it is difficult to reconcile the reputation of the hon. Member for Bedwellty as an up-and-coming, thrusting member of the Opposition, who may be the next but one leader of his party, with the way that he has run and organised the debate in Committee. I believe that he was well aware that sooner or later a guillotine would be imposed. I believe that, in the clear knowledge that he was aware of that and was dragging out debate, the responsibility for foreshortening debate is his and that of fellow Labour Members on the Committee.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I shall speak briefly. A number of my hon. Friends, especially those from Scotland, where this Bill also applies, have not yet had an opportunity to speak. On all sides of the House, it is recognised that there are occasions when a Government need to bring in a guillotine for reasons of speed, national importance or the majority that they possess, or because the end of the Session, or the end of a Parliament, is near. A guillotine not only cuts down the Opposition's time; it cuts down the time of the minority parties. As the Secretary of State will have heard, he is also cutting down the time, rights and privileges of his own hon. Friends. A guillotine diminishes the privileges of hon. Members of the House. I wish to put that clearly to the Leader of the House,


who has made the point several times himself on previous occasions. The right hon. Gentleman has to answer it tonight.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State made comparisons between the Bill over which I had charge when I was Minister of State, Department of Education and Science and this Bill. A lot of responsibility for the decision whether to impose a guillotine and the speed at which a Bill proceeds depends on the Minister in charge of the Bill. It is regrettable to hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman never even attended the Committee. That is a pity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member of the Committee when I was in charge of the 1978 Education Bill. It is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman telling the House that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave out notes on the clauses. I did. Most Ministers now give out notes on clauses to speed debate.
I should like the Leader of the House, in his reply, to state on how many occasions amendments were accepted by the Government and on how many occasions undertakings were given by the Government to accept the spirit of an amendment. That certainly happened under the previous Labour Government at the end of a Parliament. Our Bill began in January and ended in March only because the general election was called. We were then over three-quarters of the way through the Bill.
There were no restraints on the part of the Opposition towards that Bill. I can still hear the words of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) going round and round in my head, because he spoke for hours on end. How did we tackle it? On clause 6 of my Bill, I listened to what the Opposition said and then admitted that there was merit in their argument. Therefore, I withdrew the clause and introduced a new clause and a whole new schedule. We debated that not just for one or two mornings but for several weeks. I did not object to that. It was an important Education Bill and I wanted a consensus. In education we must carry the local authorities along with us, so I did not begrudge the time that it took to reach agreement.
On another occasion the Opposition were suspicious of regulations that I was

bringing in under a particular section. Those regulations would have been subject to the negative procedure. It is the duty of an Opposition to be suspicious of a Minister when they do not know what he is introducing. I did not promise that at some time in the future—God knows when—I would let hon. Members on the Committee see the draft regulations. The Opposition asked for the draft regulations on the Thursday. They got them on the Thursday night, ready for the debate on Tuesday.
On another occasion I admitted to the Committee, and the then Secretary of State, Mrs. Shirley Williams, admitted to the House, that we had made two big mistakes in our Bill in clauses 7 and 11. All Governments make mistakes in Bills. We had misjudged the effect of those two clauses on voluntary schools, particularly Roman Catholic schools, so we withdrew them. The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) tabled an amendment to which I added my name. We apologised to the Committee and we did not proceed. If a Government treat a Committee properly, they do not need a guillotine. If the Conservative Government had behaved with that sort of give-and-take spirit, we would not be debating a guillotine motion tonight.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster once referred to me in a Committee as irenic. I did not know what that word meant, so I sent my PPS down to the Library to find out whether the right hon. Member was insulting me or praising me. As it happens, it means a peace-bringer. All Ministers, irrespective of the majority of their Government, must be peace-bringers, not merely to placate the Opposition but to carry on good government.
I remind the House that we have had only eight months of Conservative Government. We are not even half-way through the first term of the first year of the present Government, yet they have the audacity to bring in a guillotine motion tonight. They have had the advantages of a Session that will run from May 1979 to November 1980. We are only in January, yet they are already bringing in a guillotine.
The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends know perfectly well that, not only because of opposition within the Conservative Party and Conservative-controlled


councils but because of the Treasury and the second round of spending cuts, he has no hope at all of implementing clause 17 of his Bill—not just this year but for many years to come. Instead of having week after week of theological argument on that clause, the Government should have accepted the fundamental economic and political facts and withdrawn clause 17 from the Committee. Not only would they have saved time; they would have generated the good will that is necessary to carry along the Opposition and the minority parties on other matters.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is it not the case that the Secretary of State is wasting time because, in their obstinacy, the Government have drawn the clause in a mandatory fashion? It is said that the Minister "shall" draw up and execute the assisted places scheme. When the Treasury finally convinces the Government that the £55 million is not available, they will have to come back to the House with an amending Bill to get rid of it if they are not to be in breach of the law.

Mr. Oakes: I thank my hon. Friend. It is shameful that, after the possibility of change was there at a much earlier stage, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should come before the House and ask for a guillotine, to deprive not only the Opposition but his hon. Friends of the chance to debate the Bill.
Government Ministers should have been much more forthcoming earlier in regard to school meals. It is still not clear in the country whether the gag that the Government are trying to impose on the House will be imposed upon councillors who have children. I know that the Under-Secretary said on 15 January that the Secretary of State for the Environment would make a statement about that. He must make a statement in this House and send a circular to local authorities saying that those councillors who have children have the right, as democratic representatives, to vote on the Bill affecting their children. I would accord them this right as well. Conservative councillors with children at independent schools, councillors who have no children and those who might in future have children should be allowed to vote on the clause 17 provision if it

ever comes before a council engaged on the question of independent schools.
In relation to school transport, I say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—not as the representative of the Roman Catholic hierarchy—with whom I have shared many platforms and who believes, as I do, in the glorious concept of British education, that Church schools and State schools can happily coexist. That is unique in the world. We do not experience anti-clericalism on the one side and anti-secularism on the other. That is because of the 1944 Act and what went before it.
The clause on school transport effectively deprives parents of the right to send their children to voluntary schools. It especially deprives Catholic parents of their right to choose a religious education for their children, because of the distance of the chosen school from their home. It is no use giving the right of choice when, on economic grounds, we take away the privilege of religious education from parents. That means that we tell parents that they can have a Catholic education for their children if they are rich enough to send their children to school on the school bus.
When I met—as a Minister—with religious objections I bowed down to them and was prepared to say that we had made a mistake. I put that to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is not in any way representing the Roman Catholic hierarchy here. I know of his passionate belief in educational coexistence and in the right of parents to send their children to a voluntary school.
The Bill denies that right. This guillotine is preventing us discussing that right. Therefore I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in all fairness, to concede that it is shameful that the House should experience a guillotine so early in the first Session of a Conservative Government affecting a Bill that so erodes the liberties and rights of so many people in this country.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I regard the opportunity to speak in this debate as a privilege. There are major events about to happen in Scottish education. These developments have been set out in the Bill, but discussion in


Committee has been devoted largely to English and Welsh education problems. It is true that we have had the presence in Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). As was said of another Bannockburn man, one such man is worth 10 Englishmen. However, that is not sufficient representation for the education structures and councils of Scotland.
We hoped that when the Scottish clauses were reached time would be given for them to be debated at considerable length in Committee and at equal length to the same provision applying to England and Wales.
When we sought on an earlier occasion to have the Scottish parts of the Bill sent to a Standing Committee other than the Education Bill Committee, we received the usual assurance that sufficient time would be given in the proceedings on the Bill in Committee. However, on the eve of the Committee moving on to the Scottish clauses—those concerned with school milk, meals and transport as in England and Wales—the guillotine motion has been introduced.
A number of suspicions must immediately be raised. In a real sense, the Bill has nothing to do with education. There is little in the Bill that advances education thinking or education practice. It is a Bill to assist in the promotion of tax cuts for the rich. It is a Bill to enhance the privileges of those who already seek the opportunities of private education. Therefore, it is a Bill that reverses not only the whole trend of education thinking since the Education Act 1944 but the movement that led up to and brought about the 1944 Act.
When I listened to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I had high hopes. I still hope that the hon. Gentleman will show his opposition. It reflects major opinion not only among education committees but among parents throughout England, Wales and Scotland. Above all, it reflects the views of councillors who are responsible for rural education throughout England, Wales and Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote to support the Opposition. I believe that he represents the views of a majority of Conservative Members. They will be able to demonstrate their attitude tonight. Why do not the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mrs.

Kellett-Bowman), for Harborough and for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) act and reject the motion? That would be the simplest thing to do. That would enable the whole Bill to be discussed. They could explain to their constituents their attitude to school milk, meals and transport.
There was an option open to the Government. It is one that has been taken in the past. When a part of a Bill has dealt primarily with England and Wales and has included certain sections dealing with Scotland, it has happened more than once in the past that the Scottish sections have been sent to a Scottish Committee. We asked for that to happen in this instance, and our request was refused. The Government are now introducing a guillotine motion. The effect of that, in the very interests of the Committee, will be to subsume the Scottish clauses within the remaining debates, which can take place over only two or three days, or to cause the Committee to ignore them.
We are not even left with the consolation of time on Report. I agree with the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and for Harborough that two days is a monstrous period for the Bill to be considered on Report, irrespective of the part of the guillotine motion affecting the Bill in Committee. There should have been extended consideration on Report. The provisions to which I have directed attention concern every Member of Parliament and every parent.
The Government's strategy resembles the sets of toy eggs that may be bought in Russia. As one removes one cover, there appear another and another. As one monstrosity is uncovered here, so one continues to uncover another and another.

Mr. James Lamond: Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor.

Mr. Buchan: No. They are not so much moles as rhinoceroses. It is suggested that Conservative Back Benchers may table amendments or motions to the Bill on Report. However, the Government deprive their Back Benchers of the chance of showing their attitude. It would be open to the hon. Member for Harborough to table an amendment to protect the children of his rural workers. However, only the occupants of the


Government Front Bench are able to move these amendments.
A marvellous opportunity is presented to the Leader of the House. We have heard so much from him in the past about this devotion to education. We have heard so much from him tonight, even in a short intervention. He argued passionately the case for children attending Catholic schools. Let us see some evidence. If the hon. Member for Harborough tables an amendment to protect the children in rural areas, will the Leader of the House give us a guarantee that he will adhere to the passionate words of his intervention and move the amendment? If he does not, he is a humbug. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that "humbug" is unparliamentary. I see that your head is tilted in that way. On the contrary, I am astonished at my moderation.
Local councils throughout Scotland, both Tory and Labour, have asserted that they will not implement the Bill. The convener of Grampian says that no matter what pressure he comes under, he will not implement the Bill. That means that he will either have to go to gaol in default or pay for the services out of the rates. The rates in Scotland are already facing a minimum of a 25 per cent. increase. The intention to pay these services would push up the increase in rates throughout Scotland to 28 or 30 per cent.
If that happens, I do not wish to see any ratepayers' associations coming to my surgery to complain about the level of rates and then driving away in cars with a sticker that says "I love Maggie". Come to think of it, there are not many stickers like that now. I wonder why.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in the full flow of his oratory, but for the sake of the record I must say that to call any right hon. or hon. Member a humbug is an unparliamentary expression. That ruling has been made on many occasions.

Mr. Buchan: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I was thinking of the old-fashioned humbug, which was rather sweet.

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

9.33.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: People throughout the country, whether town dwellers or in rural areas, accept almost unanimously that the present system is grossly unfair. In my village of Halton, sonic children's parents pay for transport and some receive free transport, even though living in houses next door to each other. That can do nothing but cause ill feeling.
It was with that in mind that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for Education, set up an inquiry into school transport, which reported shortly before we fell from office on the last occasion.
In the whole of the time that the Labour Party was in Government, it did nothing to remove the anomalies. Opposition Members should be sitting there in sackcloth and ashes. They have no right to criticise us on that matter. Most people—though they accept that the present system is unfair—are not prepared to accept burdens that are beyond their bearing.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she must direct her argument not to the content of the Bill but to the allocation of time motion.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: You are absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We are coming to those clauses just as the guillotine is falling. Even with a guillotine, I maintain that it is perfectly possible in Committee to put forward perfectly sensible amendments that will bring justice to the countryside for parents who wish their children to attend a Catholic or Church of England school. We have excellent denominational schools in my part of the world.
Measures should be proposed to alleviate the fears of many parents. They are afraid not so much of the initial charge that would be imposed as of the height to which it might escalate in years to come.
It was with that in mind that I put forward an amendment that stated:
Clause 23, page 21, line 35, at end insert—(3A) The Maximum charge of the levy for school transport shall not exceed the cost of public transport for 'walking distance'.
The amendment referred, of course, to the cost of public transport in respect of


a child, which in most cases is half. When the Bill is discussed in Committee, it is essential that an amendment of that sort should be introduced. Many children come from large families, and families in the countryside tend to be larger than families elsewhere. I should like local authorities to follow the example of the Lancashire county council, which limits the charges to two children, while other members of the family go free. I do not agree with the rate that the Lancashire county council has set. I believe that it is too high.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are the hon. Lady's comments relevant to the motion before us? It seems to me that they are totally out of order?

Mr. Speaker: I believe that the hon. Lady was about to say that without the guillotine she could not introduce her amendment.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I was seeking to suggest, Mr. Speaker, what should be said in Committee, because, unfortunately, I am not permitted—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is experienced enough to know that with a little ingenuity she could link her remarks to the motion that is before us.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I have already said sufficient to send a warning shot across the bows of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Many of us will vote for the motion very reluctantly unless we receive some assurance that the matters that we have raised will be considered by him in Committee and suitable amendments brought forward to deal with the anxieties that have been expressed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call another hon. Member, but I must inform the House that I understand that Front Bench speakers would like to begin the winding-up speeches at 9.47 pm.

Mr. Christopher Price: I shall try to co-operate with you in what you have said, Mr. Speaker. However, the change that the Government are

making in the Bill—and the change that will be guillotined by the motion—is only slowly dawning upon the country. After three years of patient negotiation with every education body in the land, between 1941 and 1944, clause 1 of the 1944 Act stated that it should be the duty of the Minister
to promote the education of the people of England and Wales…and to secure the effective execution by local authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy".
What the Government are doing in terms of school meals and transport, and what the motion is doing, is to abandon the duty laid on the Secretary of State by Parliament in 1944.
It was quite clear that the 1944 Act covered school meals and transport. It was quite clear that Parliament considered school meals and transport and all the other provisions in the Act as all of a piece in the Secretary of State's duty to promote the education of the people of England and Wales and to undertake a national policy. What the Government are proposing is a massive change, not just to the 1944 Act but to the Acts of 1870 and 1902, as well as the Education (Provision of Meals) Act that was introduced by a Liberal Government in 1906. All those Acts, which were patiently built up over a century, are to be scrapped.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are the hon. Gentleman's remarks relevant to the motion before the House?

Mr. Speaker: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will do what the hon. Lady did, and link his remarks to the motion.

Mr. Price: My point—which you are so sure I shall get to, Mr. Speaker—is that it is those elements of national policy on which it is proposed to curtail debate, both in Committee and on Report. They are elements which no Government, Labour or Conservative, have ever proposed touching in the many Bills on education since 1976. This is a truly revolutionary change, which is dawning on the country only slowly. We receive letters about this change from women's institutes, the National Farmers' Union, and so on. [Interruption.] I have received letters—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear these exchanges. I realise that I am lucky, but at the same time I want to listen to the hon. Member.

Mr. Price: I have received letters from organisations of which I have never heard about the clauses that it is proposed to guillotine. But they write to me begging me to act. I know that when the guillotine falls it will be more difficult to do so.
The Secretary of State stated, quite wrongly—he knows nothing about the Committee proceedings as he did not attend them—that the long-winded speeches were made by Labour Members. If he had attended the Committee sessions and listened to his Under-Secretary of State discussing for half-hour after half-hour issues in the Bill, and attempting to struggle through clause 17 and trying to understand abstruse matters such as company law, he would agree that it is necessary to clarify the issue and get the law right. The guillotine will make that impossible.
The guillotine is being brought in at a very early stage in the year. As far as I can remember, no Government have ever used the guillotine in January. It is usual to introduce the guillotine towards spring and summer, when the congestion in Committee is great. The guillotine has been brought in because, for the first time, we have a Government who are contemptuous not only of 100 years of consensus educational traditions but of the traditions of the House.
I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against the Bill.

Mr. John MacKay: I have much pleasure in speaking after the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), because I have spent approximately 80 hours in following him, hour after hour, in Committee. His speech tonight is by far the shortest speech that he has made. He has treated us to discourses on history and on the meanings of words. He has even taken dictionaries into the Committee and has equally treated us to learned dissertations on the meaning of Latin phrases. It is all very learned and all very time-consuming. Some of the things that I feel to be common sense do not appear to be so when we are in the Standing Committees of this

House, if not in the Chamber. I thought that we were here to discuss the guillotine and not the substance of the clauses still to come.
I shall attempt, in my remaining three minutes, to discuss the guillotine. I am reluctant to see the guillotine being used, but let no one who sits here and who does not sit in Standing Committee D have any doubt where the blame lies. The blame lies with the people who for hour after hour have taken an unnecessary amount of time. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has got what he wanted, which is a guillotine on the latter part of the Bill. I am sure that he would have doubled the length of his speeches, if necessary, in order to get a guillotine.
At the very beginning, we sat for four hours on the sittings motion. Then we had a further hour and 20 minutes on the manner in which the Bill was to be considered. I am a member of another Standing Committee which, within an hour this morning, got rid of a sittings motion. It is an equally contentious Committee, dealing with the Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps it has not as many good talkers as Standing Committee D. On one occasion in Standing Committee D we sat all night. For a long time there was a good deal of stalling going on, and then suddenly we went forward at a gallop. Indeed, today we got through more clauses than we have ever managed to take previously in a week, let alone a sitting.
The Minister mentioned Tuesday 15 January, when for three hours and 50 minutes we chased a point of order. I thought that the hon. Member for Bedwellty had made it very well but his hon. Friends thought that he had made it so badly that each of them wanted to do it all over again.
Finally, if anyone doubts that the Committee has been treated to quite spurious points of order, I recommend him—if he is ill and has a long time to spend in hospital—to read the reports of the Committee and to count how many times the Chairman has had to say that something was not a point of order.

Mr. Michael Foot: I have in the past been involved in a number of timetable motions and the


debates on them, so that I have a certain nostalgic interest in such discussions.
I am especially glad to have the chance of speaking in the debate—and I am very sorry for my hon. Friends who have not had the chance to speak—because of the representations that have been made to me in my constituency. A few days ago I had representations made to me by Catholic constituents and by people from Welsh schools. They came from the whole of Gwent to make their representations. They made an overwhelming case. Many of my hon. Friends have contributed in making their case in the debate today.
The Government will be making a great mistake—to put it at its lowest from their own point of view—if they do not understand the strength of that feeling and how determined we are to try to secure a change in the Bill, even though we know that the operation of the guillotine makes more difficult the chance of getting that change. That is one of the main reasons why we are opposed to this guillotine motion.
References have been made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the way in which he led the Opposition in Committee. I believe that most of those who made attacks upon him were extremely jealous. It was said by someone in years gone by that it was possible to hear a speech in which there was an Iliad in a nutshell, and I am sure that is the way of my hon. Friend. Many of the speeches that we have heard from Government Members have been the other way round—a nutshell in an Iliad. We have had that from many of those who contributed to our discussions. My hon. Friend put his case strongly today, as I am sure he did in Committee. It would be a great mistake for the Government not to recognise that.
This debate on the timetable motion is different from my experience of many others. There has been no attempt by anyone in the House to quote what someone else may have said about such motions in the past. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made reference to what had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on merits of a Bill. But on the issue of guillotines the significance of the absence of any quotations from what others have said on previous occasions is

precisely because the bulk of those who have applied their minds to the motion and our discussion recognise how strong the feelings are that have been represented. Such strong feelings have been expressed not only from my right hon. and hon. Friends but from, for example, the hon. Members for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who undoubtedly represented what their constituents had to say.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) said, a major alteration in education is being attempted in the Bill. Major burdens will be placed on many families up and down the country, some of them the poorest families, some of them from Catholic communities, and some whose children go to Welsh schools. It would have been far better, and in the Government's own interest, to have allowed a longer discussion to see how these matters could be dealt with. However, we know what will happen shortly when we come to the conclusion of the debate.
Many of those who have entered the Chamber to speak and to vote will not have listened to the whole debate. Therefore, to enlighten them as they drift in, I will indicate to them, perhaps by altering the name of the Bill, the sort of measure this is.
I know that the Bill is described in some quarters as the Education (No. 2) Bill, but that is not correct. It is a combination of a large number of other Bills contained in a general framework. It might be better described as the Free School Transport Abolition Bill, the Poverty Trap Extension Bill, the Hit the Children First Bill, or the Feed My Lambs (Frustration) Bill. It might also be described as the Milestone Unlimited Bill. Any of those titles would be more apposite.
Those who have come late to out discussions and who may drift into the Lobby will be voting for a rough time in their constituencies. They will face difficulties in the weeks to come because they will have to explain why they used their vote for the purpose of trying to prevent adequate discussion of a major change in our educational policy.
I hope that the Government will recognise that they are not dealing with some procedural matter. I know that some hon. Members such as the hon.


Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) believe in having a timetable motion for every Bill that is introduced, or want to regulate the procedures of the House. I have always opposed that, whichever side of the House I have been on. If we proceeded along those lines we would regulate still further the business of the House, so that the Opposition would not be able to put their case.
Though not an absolute novelty, something fresh is created in this guillotine motion. There are exceptions, but generally guillotine motions are required to get highly controversial party measures through the House. There is nothing wrong with highly controversial party measures. I am all in favour of them. They are some of the main transactions that have to be put through the House. Often, they can be put through only with the assistance of a guillotine, but with this motion, more than any other guillotine motion that I can recall, the purpose is not to stifle the Opposition. It is much more to stifle Conservative Members.
Those Conservative Members who have spoken bravely in the debate have the remedy in their own hands if they wish to avoid the charge that they have assisted in applying a gag to themselves. No one knows for certain whether they will have that remedy later. Once the guillotine has fallen, there is no certainty that they will be able to press to a vote the issues that concern them. They will have forfeited that opportunity. I urge them to consider the matter carefully.
Our debate has been not the formal exchanges that sometimes take place on guillotine motions but an expression of the anger felt throughout the country that the Government should be seeking to force through clause 23 and other clauses in the manner that they have adopted.
I hope that we shall have a sufficient response from Conservative Members who wish to sustain proper debate and to ensure that they have the chance to speak for their constituents. If they do not exercise that right, they will have to bear the responsibility for the increased bus and school meal charges and the increased charges that are to be placed on the community in general. Now is the time that we decide. I hope that Conservative

Members will join us in the Lobby to defeat the Government.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): No hon. Member likes guillotine motions, and I am no exception. Anyone who believes in parliamentary government, which is government by discussion, must regret the curtailment of debate.
When the closure and guillotine procedures were introduced in the House in the 1880s, they were strongly resisted by both the libertarians and the traditionalists, but in face of the obstruction of Government business by Irish Members at that time the House voted to change its procedures and to curtail the untrammelled right of debate.
Hon. Members accepted then, and they accept now, that some limitation is necessary on absolute freedom of debate—closing an open end, as it were—because otherwise Parliament would be reduced to impotence and no Government would be able to get their business through.
I was interested in the constructive suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) that the further reform of a timetabling committee should be considered. That would be a drastic change because time is the principal weapon of any Opposition, but I think that the suggestion should be considered further, though it can hardly be disposed of at the tail end of this debate.
I was also interested in the points made about children in rural areas and Parents who want a denominational education for their children.
Of course, these are points for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science who has ministerial responsibility in this sphere. But I want to take up the points that were made by the right hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Oakes), my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and others on the position of denominational schools. Let me make it plain that under the Government proposals a local education authority will continue to be able to help parents—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Education (No. 2) Bill (Allocation of Time), the Residential Homes Bill [Lords], the Child Care Bill [Lords] and the Foster Children Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Question again proposed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: A local education authority will continue to be able to help parents with arrangements for getting their children to school, but of course that authority will be able to charge for whatever services it provides at its discretion, subject only to the requirement that free home-to-school transport must be provided for a pupil if he is attending the nearest appropriate school, the school is more than walking distance from home and the parents receive supplementary benefit or family income supplement.
May I make it quite clear that it is not the Government's intention to do anything which could be regarded as discriminating against families whose children attend Church schools as a matter of religious conviction. Although the law does not require the local education authority to provide assistance if there is a nearer appropriate county school, in practice the policy of the Government and the local education authorities has been that free travel arrangements should be made where this has seemed reasonable. It is the view of the Government that such families should be treated no less favourably than they would have been had the child been attending the appropriate county school.
Information about the way the local authorities plan to use their new powers suggests that transport now provided free will not be withdrawn and that the same charge will be applied whether the school is a county school or a voluntary school. My right hon. Friend is able to say—

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. I have a limited amount of time and there are a number of points I want to make. The

hon. Gentleman has had his say. Will he please wait for me to finish this important point?
I have discussed this matter with my right hon. and learned Friend. He will listen during Committee stage to all the points that are made and he will consider bringing forward an amendment at Report stage if he thinks it necessary to ensure that there can be no discrimination against children attending denominational schools.

Mr. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that local authorities could do the reverse, by making no charges for Roman Catholic pupils, having had to introduce charges for pupils attending State schools who live at a distance from the schools?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: What I am suggesting is that the attitude of the Government on this point is reasonable and flexible and that we do not expect any change in practice.
May I get back to the subject of the guillotine? Speaking as a parliamentarian, I regard the guillotine as a necessary evil. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must let me continue.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. Gentleman is being nasty.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not being nasty; I merely want to develop my argument. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
I put it no higher and no lower than that. Of course, no Government should resort to a guillotine lightly. That is so. It is certainly true, too, that the case for its employment should be clearly proved and that there should be clear evidence that reasonable time has been allowed for discussion. In a sentence, I do not believe that the House should proceed on the basis that the guillotine is a stranger to its procedures. Those are not my words; they are the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Shadow Leader of the House speaking on one of the many guillotine motions in which he has been involved.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Both you and I, recognising the importance of the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made in the first five minutes of his speech, did not interrupt him on a matter of order when his words were totally irrelevant to the guillotine motion. I tried to interrupt him at that time but he would not give way. I shall continue to interrupt him now.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am unmoved by that threat, Mr. Speaker.
An important point was raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and I answered it on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Any reasonable person would have trought that that was a right and proper way to do so and would not wish to get involved in a general debate on the substantial issues that are involved—

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It appears that the Minister will not give way. He has been called to address the House, he has the Floor, and he is not giving way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course, the point should be pursued. However, the place to pursue it is not in a guillotine debate but in the resumed Committee stage.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order: . We are beginning to become disorderly. If the Minister does not give way, he must be allowed to continue to make his speech.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I earnestly regret my course of action, especially in view of the brief time that is left for the debate. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot make an important statement and run away without being cross-questioned on it. That is the sort of thing that causes disorder.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In general, Labour Governments have been traditionally much more eager to resort to guillotines than Tory Governments. [Interruption.] That is true. The evidence is there. Over the last 20 years, Labour Governments—

Mr. Walter Harrison: Look at the number.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am looking at the numbers and I see that that has been the case over the last 20 years. However, a beneficial side effect has been the embarrassing number of quotations from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) which could be distributed impartially on both sides of the argument—I make that concession to him. Such is his agility that, had we command of the time machine of H. G. Wells, it would be perfectly possible for the right hon. Gentleman to carry on the whole of the debate by himself. It would be like a parliamentary game of Chinese ping pong. First, we would have him saying that he sees
a Labour Government as having a right and a duty to legislate against any attempts to frustrate us in the end from exercising our rights of legislation…of course, it is a particular illustration of the malice, folly and absurdity into which right hon. and hon. Opposition Members place themselves that when we exercise those ancient rights it is cheating and when they exercise them it is freedom."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c. 1543]
That is what the right hon. Gentleman said when he was speaking in favour of a guillotine on 20 July 1976.

Mr. Foot: It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman's speech is greatly improving as it goes along. I hope that he will keep up that standard until the end. He might feel that I am being intensely out of order, but I wonder whether he will answer some of the questions that have been put in the debate. I suggest that, instead of devoting the rest of his time to quoting my speeches—gratifying though I know that would be for the whole House—he should take his courage in both hands and try to answer the question that was put to him directly earlier in the debate. That direct question was about how the Government will behave when the guillotine falls—if it does—in respect of enabling some Conservative Members to have the chance to press their motions to a vote. Let him answer that part of the debate instead of giving us that which he has prepared so carefully beforehand.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman is very skilled at seeking to distract attention from his own inconsistencies. The principal point of his argument has been that this is yet another different occasion. He implies that this


is a very special occasion and that the guillotine should be resisted.
I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks have not been dictated by any intellectual consistency. Emerson said that
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".
Nothing as demanding as intellectual vigour has determined the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman. Something much more comfortable than that has determined his attitude, namely, the side of the Chamber that he happens to be sitting on.
In fairness, I shall briefly turn to the right hon. Gentleman's understudy—the hon. Member for Bedwellty. We are assured by the press that he is the contemporary and up-to-date version of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He has been described by one newspaper as a "carbon copy" of the right hon. Gentleman. That is largely a matter of taste. Personally I prefer the original. However, history does not repeat itself. If history did repeat itself, the right person to quote would be Karl Marx. He declared that, if history repeats itself, it is first as a tragedy and then as a farce.
Under the generalship of the hon. Member for Bedwellty, the Committee proceedings were rapidly reduced to a farce. That constitutes the justification for the guillotine. It is true that he did not do it all by himself. He was helped by several other "copies" who were misled by his leadership. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) played his part. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) played his part also. They were aided and abetted by other hon. Members, with the result that 82 hours of debate had gone by before the guillotine was suggested. At that time they had got only half-way through a short Bill of fewer than 40 clauses.
I suggest that that was due to the incompetence of the hon. Member for Bedwellty. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham puts forward a more sinister interpretation. He says that it was done from intent. Whatever the motivation, the responsibility lies fairly and squarely upon the hon. Gentleman's shoulders.

Mr. Kinnock: As regards matters of responsibility, will the right hon. Gentleman—after all his platitudes about not

treating children who attend denominational schools in a discriminatory way—answer a substantive point? Will it still be the case that parents who have not had to find substantial fares for their children to travel to school will now—as a result of the Bill and of the Goverment's action—have to pay £90 to send their children to a primary school and £133 to send their children to secondary schools? For the first time in the debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech".] Will the Leader of the House answer a question instead of putting on a pantomime performance for the distraction of his hon. Friends?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have made it plain that discretion will be given to local authorities as to whether they impose charges. Secondly, we have every reason to believe that there will be no discrimination against children who attend denominational schools. That answers fully the point raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty.
If I may return to the subject matter of the debate, which is the guillotine, the hon. Member for Bedwellty must have known that his Government imposed guillotines on Bills of equal importance after a shorter period of time. Therefore, he knew that the amount of time was limited. He also knows that at least 12 hours were spent in Committee on points of order and related sittings motions, all of which time could have been devoted to the substance of the Bill.
He knows, too, that he spoke at inordinate length. He told us tonight that he is fond of his own voice. That is a minority taste, but he is perfectly entitled to his view, although it is apparently not shared by his right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who rose and ruined him in the middle of his peroration. It is the best example of a perforated peroration that I have ever seen. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his resilience. He came up from beneath the wave with yet another peroration between his teeth.
The Opposition must bear a share of the responsibility for their total lack of proportion—their obsession with the assisted places scheme.
I have listened to the entire debate. No case has been made out in principle or


practice for voting against the motion. I admire to some extent the appearance of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale at the Dispatch Box to oppose the guillotine. I do not know which to admire most, his courage or his gall. At any rate, on guillotines he speaks with authority. It is advice from an expert. It was the right hon. Gentleman who walked away with the supreme challenge cup—a record unequalled by any other Leader of the House before or since: five guillotines on a single day in July 1976. That

Division No. 147]
AYES
[10.15 pm.


Adley, Robert
Cranborne, Viscount
Hayhoe, Barney


Altken, Jonathan
Critchley, Julian
Heddle, John


Alexander, Richard
Crouch, David
Henderson, Barry


Alison, Michael
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dickens, Geoffrey
Hicks, Robert


Ancram, Michael
Dorrell, Stephen
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Arnold, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dover, Denshore
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
du Cann, Rt Kon Edward
Hooson, Tom


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Hordern, Peter


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Durant, Tony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dykes, Hugh
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Bendall, Vivian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Eggar, Timothy
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Elliott, Sir William
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Best, Keith
Emery, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eyre, Reginald
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, John
Fairgrieve, Russell
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Blackburn, John
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Blaker, Peter
Farr, John
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Body, Richard
Fell, Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
King, Rt Hon Tom


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knox, David


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lamont, Norman


Bowden, Andrew
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Lang, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Brinton, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lawson, Nigel


Brittan, Leon
Fox, Marcus
Lee, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Lester, Jim (Beston)


Brotherton, Michael
Fry, Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; Waterloo)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Loveridge, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Luce, Richard


Buck, Antony
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lyell, Nicholas


Budgen, Nick
Glyn, Dr Alan
McCrindle, Robert


Bulmer, Esmond
Goodhart, Philip
Macfarlane, Neil


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
MacGregor, John


Butcher, John
Goodlad, Alastair
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Butler, Hon Adam
Gorst, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gow, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gower, Sir Raymond
McQuarrie, Albert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gray, Hamish
Madel, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Greenway, Harry
Major, John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Marland, Paul


Channon, Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marlow, Tony


Chapman, Sydney
Grist, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Churchill, W. S.
Grylls, Michael
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Mates, Michael


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)
Mather, Carol


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray


Cockeram, Eric
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Colvin, Michael
Hannam, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cope, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Mayhew, Patrick


Cormack, Patrick
Hastings, Stephen
Mellor, David


Corrie, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Hawksley, Warren
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)

is the record of the right hon. Gentleman.

Right hon. and hon. crocodiles—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44 (Allocation of time to Bills).

Question put accordingly: —

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 255.

Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Raison, Timothy
Tebbit, Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Rathbone, Tim
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Moate, Roger
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Donald


Monro, Hector
Renton, Tim
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Montgomery, Fergus
Rhodes James, Robert
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morgan, Geraint
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Ridsdale, Julian
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Mudd, David
Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Murphy, Christopher
Royle, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Myles, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waddington, David


Neale, Gerrard
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Wakeham, John


Needham, Richard
Scott, Nicholas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Neubert, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Newton, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon sir Derek.


Normanton, Tom
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills)
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Cranley
Shersby, Michael
Walters, Dennis


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally
Silvester, Fred
Ward, John


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Sims, Roger
Warren Kenneth


Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham
Skeet, T. H. H.
Watson John


Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Speed, keith
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Parkinson, Cecil
Speller, Tony
Wells, Bowen Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Parris, Matthew
Spence, John
Wheeler, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Whitelaw Rt Hon William


Patten, John (Oxford)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Whitney, Raymond


Pattie, Geoffrey
Sproat, Iain
Wickenden, Keith


Pawsey, James
Squire, Robin
Wiggin, Jerry


Percival, Sir Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Stanley, John
Wolfson, Mark


Pink, R. Bonner
Steen, Anthony
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pollock, Alexander
Stevens, Martin
Younger, Rt Hon George


Porter, George
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)



Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stokes, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


(Prior, Rt Hon James
Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Anthony Berry.


Proctor, K. Harvey
Tapsell, Peter





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cowans, Harry
Foulkes, George


Adams, Allen
Crowther, J. S.
Fraser, John (Lambeth Norwood)


Allaun, Frank
Cryer, Bob
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Alton, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Freud, Clement


Anderson, Donald
Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Dalyell, Tam
George, Bruce


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davidson, Arthur
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Glnsburg, David


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Golding, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Davis, Clinton, (Hackney Central)
Gourlay, Harry


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Graham, Ted


Beith, A. J.
Deakins, Eric
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dempsey, James
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dixon, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dobson, Frank
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur(M'brough)
Dormand, Jack
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bradley, Tom
Douglas, Dick
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dubs, Alfred
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dunnett, Jack
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Eadle, Alex
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)


Buchan, Norman
Eastham, Ken
Home Robertson, john


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Homewood, William


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Hooley, Frank


Campbell, Ian
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Horam John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
English, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon Denis(B'ham, Sm H)


Canavan, Dennis
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Howells, Geraint


Cant, R. B.
Evans, John (Newton)
Huckfield, Les


Carmichael, Nell
Ewing, Harry
Hudson Davies Gwilym Ednyfed


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Field, Frank
Hughes, Mark(Durham)


Cartwright, John
Fitch, Alan
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Fitt, Gerard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Flannery, Martin
Janner, Hon Greville


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Coleman, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
John, Brynmor


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Forrester, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby South)


Conlan, Bernard
Foster, Derek
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)







Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Silverman, Julius


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Newens, Stanley
Snape, Peter


Kerr, Russell
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Soley, Clive


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ogden, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Kinnock, Neil
O'Halloran, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Lambie, David
O'Neill, Martin
Stallard, A. W.


Lamborn, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lamond, James
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stoddart, David


Leadbitter, Ted
Palmer, Arthur
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ronald
Park, George
Strang, Gavin


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Parker, John
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Parry, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Litherland, Robert
Pavitt, Laurie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McCusker, H.
Prescott, John
Tilley, John


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Tinn, James


McElhone, Frank
Race, Reg
Torney, Tom


McKay, Allan (Penistone)
Radice, Giles
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


McKelvey, William
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Richardson, Jo
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maclennan, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


McMahon, Andrew
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Weetch, Ken


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wellbeloved, James


McNally, Thomas
Robertson, George
Welsh, Michael


McWilliam, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Magee, Bryan
Rodgers, Rt Hon William
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Marshall, David (Gl'sgow, Shettles'n)
Rooker, J. W.
Whitlock, William


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Ryman, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, SE)


Meacher, Michael
Sandelson, Neville
Winnick, David


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Sever, John
Woodall, Alec


Mikardo, Ian
Sheerman, Barry
Woolmer, Kenneth


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Short, Mrs Renée
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molyneaux, James
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr George Morton and


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 4 February 1980.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 4 February may continue until 11 pm whether or not the House is adjourned before that time and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 5 February 1980.

Report and Third Reading

2.—(1) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolutions as to the Proceed-

ings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a Sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the


Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
4. No Motion shall be moved to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule but the resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the Proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those Proceedings.

Conclusion of Proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair: 

(b)any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10.—(1) The Proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any Proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or
(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12.—(1) References in this Order to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading include references to Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, re-committal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the Proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Education (No. 2) Bill; "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

RESIDENTIAL HOMES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I remind the House that this is a straight consolidation measure, where all that can be discussed is the question whether the law should be consolidated by the Bill in question.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates certain enactments relating to the registration, inspection and conduct of disabled and old people's homes and residential homes for mentally disordered persons, and to the provision by district councils of meals and recreation for old people.
The Bill has been considered by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation of Bills. In the Committee's fourth report, made to the House on 14 November 1979, the Committee said that it was of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, was pure consolidation and that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.
It follows from the fact, as reported by the Joint Committee, that this is pure consolidation and that it makes no change whatever in the existing law. It is a part of the continuing process of consolidation of the statute law carried out under the auspices of the Law Commission, as are the next two Bills on the Order Paper, on which I hope to say a word in a moment or two. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: I want to speak against the consolidation by the Bill because it perpetuates an unsatisfactory situation. I think that there must be great disappointment on both sides of the House that the Bill is only a tidying-up measure.
There is a concern about private old people's homes which should, in my view, have caused the Government to bring forward not a consolidation Bill but a Bill that would institute much tighter controls over private old people's homes.


I would like to quote from the last edition of The Sunday Times, which will illustrate the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when Mr. Speaker made his announcement. The only issue that may be discussed is whether the law should be consolidated by the Bill or whether it should be left to be expressed in a number of different statutes.

Mr. Foulkes: I appreciate the position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker did me the courtesy of explaining it to me personally, as I had indicated my wish to speak on Second Reading. Mr. Speaker explained the position to me in advance of his public announcement in the House.
I speak against consolidation because it will perpetuate an unsatisfactory situation. Surely that is a good ground for speaking against consolidation. If I can argue satisfactorily to the House that the present position is unsatisfactory, I hope that the Minister will think again about consolidation. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will take the Bill away and return with a new measure that does not merely consolidate but deals with the issues that I intend to raise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that the law should be changed. He can argue only that certain measures should be left on the statute book as at present.

Mr. Foulkes: It is my intention to demonstrate that by mere consolidation an unsatisfactory situation will be perpetuated. We should not agree to consolidation for that reason. If you listen to my argument, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will find that the matters that I raise are in order.
It was alleged in the most recent issue of The Sunday Times that two of those running old people's homes under the present regulations that we are being asked to consolidate
lied to local authorities about their London old people's home…to avoid registration and inspection.
Secondly, it is alleged that they
kept patients in the home against their wishes and prevented friends and relatives from seeing them alone.

Thirdly, it is alleged that they
posed as 'expert nurses', administered drugs…although neither of them has recognised medical qualifications.
The article continues:
To some extent it was the weakness of the law on old people's homes, roundly criticised by the coroner last week".
That was the coroner dealing with the particular case to which I refer. If a coroner is criticising the present law and saying that it is unsatisfactory, surely it is wrong for us to go through the procedure of giving the Bill a Second Reading and consolidating measures that are manifestly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the effect of not accepting this consolidation measure would be to leave existing measures unconsolidated, there does not seem to be much that anyone can do to remedy the matters to which the hon. Gentleman is drawing attention. Is there any point in listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, however elegant and persuasive it may be?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order. I have tried to explain to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that the Bill does not change the law. It merely consolidates a number of statutes. The hon. Gentleman cannot now argue for a change in the law, and that is what he is attempting to do. However much he may wish to see the law changed, this is not the moment to advance that argument.

Mr. Foulkes: I crave the indulgence of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am saying that the Bill is taking the time of the House on Second Reading, and will do so when its later stages are considered, when that time could be spent dealing with an issue of extreme importance. If the Bill is withdrawn—that is what I am suggesting—and the Government introduce a measure that tightens up the regulations, I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will speed its passage. That would lead to an improvement.
In a written answer that I received today from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) also received, the hon. Gentleman stated that he could not usefully add to


the reply given by his right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on 11 December 1979. That reply stated:
The review of the arrangements for the registration and inspection of private and voluntary homes for old people, the disabled and persons suffering from mental disorders is continuing.
It says:
I hope to be able to put forward proposals for consultation during the course of the forthcoming year".—[Official Report, 11 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 579–80.]
The position is far too serious for us to wait. I hope that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be, but it has nothing to do with the measure that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman must stick to what is on the Order Paper and not argue for a change in the law, however desirable that may be.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have made my feelings felt. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to think about them and withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Reg Race: I am concerned also about the Bill as a consolidation measure. We should not have a consolidation measure before us. We should consider the National Assistance Act 1948 and its application to the 21,500 who are presently in private sector old people's homes. We should consider ways of improving the law. The consolidation measure merely brings together the worst aspects of the present law.
The worst aspects are twofold: first, the aspects referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) and, secondly, the real problem of the employees in residential homes who, on many occasions, have no proper trade union recognition rights.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is arguing the merits of a case and not whether the two statutes should be consolidated. That is the only matter that we are concerned with at the moment.

Mr. Race: I am grateful for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the last opportunity in this Parliament for the House to discuss a measure about residential homes. It is crucial that we

discuss a measure that will change the law rather than consolidate it. That is why I support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire that the Bill ought to be withdrawn and replaced by a Bill that gives rights to trade unionists in residential homes and further rights to those who are incarcerated there, often in absolutely deplorable conditions.

Mr. John Morris: My hon. Friends, drawing on their experience, have drawn to the attention of the House certain failings in existing law. Obviously there are difficulties, within the rules of order, to canvass the issues that they would have raised on another occasion. They have made their points moderately, and the House should listen to them.
There should not be consolidation on this aspect of the law without, first, or at the same time, dealing with the matters raised by my hon. Friends. That is the matter in a nutshell.
Without in any way wishing to fall foul of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friends have ventilated their grievances. They have brought to the attention of the House matters that they regard as important. It would facilitate business if there were an indication from the Solicitor-General that he will consider the matters that have been raised.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall comment on those matters. In the short history of this Parliament I have already said more than once that it is a great pity that hon. Members do not know more about the process of consolidation. It is a self-contained and useful process. It is a process in which a committee of experts does a useful job for us, thus enabling us to implement this tidying-up process without any change in the law and at very small expense in terms of the time of the House.
Two of the hon. Members who have spoken have, I think, shown further evidence of that lack of knowledge, but perhaps that is forgivable in the case of new Members who take a little longer to find these things out. However, I was more surprised at the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). He knows that the only


choice before the House is whether we should leave these provisions of the law spread about two separate Acts—and two separate parts of one of those Acts—or whether we should put them into one Act where, good, bad or indifferent, they can be ascertained more easily and speedily by those who are interested. That is the sole question before the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that, just as he must know that I cannot deal with any other aspect of the matter. That is the question before the House. When the House faces the right question, I believe that it can come to only one conclusion, which is to give the Bill a Second reading.

Mr. John Morris: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Iam sure that the Solicitor-General wants to assist the House. I also want to facilitate the business. But he must not come here and lecture my hon. Friends time after time when he is introducing consolidation measures.
If Conservative Members want to get home early, they must teach the Solicitor-General a lesson when they retire from the Chamber, otherwise there will be a

series of occasions when they will be here for a very long time indeed.
Without being immodest, I can say that I have been here for several years, and I know the nature and the meaning of consolidation measures of this kind. However, the point that has been raised is whether on a particular aspect of law there should be consolidation at all.
I know that the Solicitor-General wants to help the House to get his hon. Friends home as early as possible. I know that he wants to get home as early as he can. Therefore, I hope that in future he will not come to the House in such a patronising manner and try to teach my hon. Friends lessons but rather will say sympathetically that their points will be considered by the appropriate channels and that in due course he will either be able or unable to deal with their points. With respect, that is a speedier way—not necessarily a better way—of ensuring that hon. Members get home early.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Newton.]

Committee tomorrow.

CHILD CARE BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Again, this is a consolidation Bill. It consolidates certain enactments relating to children in the care of local authorities and voluntary organisations in England and Wales. The Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills in its third report, made on 31 October, reported that it was of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, was pure consolidation and represented existing law. It makes no changes whatever to the existing law. I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Newton.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

FOSTER CHILDREN BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I can move the Second Reading even more briefly in this case, the considerations being similar to those in the previous two Bills.
Again, this is a consolidation Bill. It consolidates certain enactments relating to the fostering of children by private individuals in England and Wales. The Joint Select Committee in its third report to the House on 31 October 1979 reported that it was of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, was pure consolidation and represented existing law. It again follows that it makes no changes whatsoever in the existing law. I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Morris: I listened closely to the words of the Solicitor-General. He said that the Bill makes no changes in existing law. I do not think that that is wholly accurate, because it brings into force some of the provisions of the Children Act 1975 which are not yet in force. That is the distinguishing feature. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Solicitor-General will correct me.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I shall be happy to look into that point. The only difference of which I am aware is a minor improvement that represents not a change in the law but an improvement in the way in which it is expressed. The Committee reported that the Bill made no changes and that it was pure consolidation. I shall certainly look into the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and write to him about it.

Mr. John Morris: This is an important point—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I was going to call another hon. Gentleman first. There can be one reply.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The mere fact that a provision is not yet in force does not mean that it is not the law of the land. Power is given to the


Minister in the Children Act to bring certain sections or measures into force, and presumably the Shadow Attorney-General is referring to that. If I am right, there is no merit in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I understood that previously he was angry, or to some extent irritated, by the impressive manner with which my hon. and learned Friend introduced one of the earlier measures. He might well stand in shame at making a point that appears to me to be in unutterable ignorance of the procedures of the House and the effect of legislation. He ought to give us an apology.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has just said. Bills often provide that at some future date a provision will come into force, when the Minister so states or requires. My hon. Friend is quite right. As soon as the measure passes through the process in Parliament, it becomes the law. The fact that its operation may be postponed for a few months does not in any way detract from the truth of what my hon. Friend has just said. Therefore, I am bound to say that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) is wholly wrong and, like my hon. Friend, I hope that he will apologise to the Solicitor-General.

Mr. John Morris: With the leave of the House, I should like to attempt to apologise in my own way. When I am told that I should be ashamed, naturally I look at my position to see to what degree I should show contrition. When I put my point to the Solicitor-General, at first he seemed to be totally unaware of it. In good faith, as he told us, he was putting before the House the words that it makes no change in the existing law—full stop. I was not bringing to the attention of the House a matter out of my own head, without having studied the matter. I relied, indeed, upon eminent legal sources and on the way in which it has been put elsewhere.
The way in which it has been put is that the Bill
makes no changes in the existing law, except that it brings into force some of the provisions of the Children Act 1975 which are not yet in force."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 July 1979; Vol. 401, c. 1630.]

Presumably there is a reason why it was put in that way, with a comma, followed by the words
except that it brings into force some of the provisions of the Children Act 1975 which are not yet in force.
The source of that authority—first, that there is no change in the law and, secondly, that there is the one exception referred to—is no less a person than the Lord Chancellor, in introducing the Bill in another place. On that ground, on reflection, I do not think that the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will press me to don my sackcloth and ashes and show contrition—unless he wants me to do it in tandem with the Lord Chancellor. I would be perfectly willing to consider doing that.

Mr. Lawrence: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman is not permitted to make two speeches.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that I may have been perhaps too brief in my comment on what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said. It seems that one cannot win—one is either too long or too brief—but one must keep trying.
We sent to the right hon. and learned Gentleman a copy of the Bill and of the evidence, and of the report of the Joint Committee, in advance of these proceedings. If there had been a point on which he wished to speak to me, I should have been very glad to speak to him about it. He now raises a very technical point, as he is perfectly entitled to do. I must deal with it as best I may. I believe the answer in law to be that which I have given to the House.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Having regard to the second thoughts that the Solicitor-General is now having about this matter, will he have second thoughts about his answer to me yesterday, in which he made the most disgraceful and disparaging aspersions about the value of The Times Law Reports?

Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is utterly irrelevant and is another reason why the


Opposition spokesman should apologise to the House for wasting our time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was about to say to the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) that his point has absolutely nothing to do with the measure.

The Solicitor-General: It is also a little surprising that the hon. and learned Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) should refer to an intervention by himself which ended with his being rebuked by Mr. Speaker, but let that pass. It has nothing whatever—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Could we get off this subject, Mr. Solicitor-General, and back to the Bill?

The Solicitor-General: I would have been happy not to have got on to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not having second thoughts; I was adding to what I had said in the hope of helping the House. Had the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon wished to discuss this point with me, I would have been happy to do so. I shall be happy to do so after these proceedings if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes. I must advise the House that this is a pure consolidation matter. It has been certified as such. I think that the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and Grantham (Mr. Hogg) adequately deal with the points raised on technical matters.
My advice is that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Newton.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

CLOSE COMPANIES (INTEREST PAYMENTS)

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): I beg to move,
That the draft Income Tax (Excess Interest As Distributions) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.
This order increases from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent. the limit enshrined in section 285(4) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.
The House will recall that if a close company were to pay interest to a director who had a material interest in that company—roughly defined as 5 per cent. or more of its equity—or to the associate of a director, and if such interest is in excess of the prescribed limit, the excess is to be treated as a distribution with disadvantages, to which I shall refer.
First, the company will not be able to deduct that excess as a charge on income for corporation tax purposes. Furthermore, the excess will be subject to advance corporation tax. The original measure, which contains the first limit, dates back to 1965 and was designed to evade what was then thought to be a possible measure of avoidance whereby directors and their associates would suck out of the companies in which they were interested, by way of interest, sums that would more properly be regarded as distributions or dividends.
In 1969 the limit was 8 per cent., which related to a bank rate of 8 per cent. In the Finance Act 1974 it was raised to 12 per cent., to keep it in line with a bank rate of 12 per cent. Now that the minimum lending rate is 17 per cent., it was thought appropriate—I hope that I shall carry the House with me on this—that the limit should be raised to 17 per cent.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Why is MLR at 17 per cent.?

Mr. Rees: That is a different question, to answer which would take me into fields of economic policy that it is not appropriate for me to debate now, though I am always happy to debate with the right hon. Gentleman, who has profound knowledge. Indeed, he perhaps has more experience than I have. He sat for many


years in the room that I am now privileged to occupy at the Treasury.
Those are matters that lie outside this modest order. It does no more than to adjust the limits that previous Governments, of whatever complexion, thought should be adjusted to keep them in line with the prevailing minimum lending rate and bank rate. I hope that on that basis the House will feel able to approve the order.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister of State has not dealt at all with the reason why the rate is going up from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent. We all appreciate the technical reasons for the order—that from time to time the rate must be examined, because money paid out of a close company can sometimes be dressed up as interest instead of being a distribution. We understand that quite well. But the question to which the hon. and learned Gentleman should have addressed himself—and did not—was the reason why we are being asked to increase the rate to 17 per cent.
The Minister said that it was not within his province to answer that question. However, it is the very reason for the order. If it were earlier in the evening, and more hon. Members were present, perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would be pressed more on the question why the order is being introduced. Why is he wasting the time of the House if there is no particular meaning to the increase?
The Minister knows very well what the reason is. He tried to ignore it, but it clearly is that this Government, through their economic and financial mismanagement, have created a situation in which we now have a minimum lending rate of 17 per cent. The hon. and learned Gentleman himself said that the rate required for this rather technical order generally followed bank rate or the MLR. It is now following an MLR of 17 per cent., which has been created by this Government.
It is only right, even at this late hour, to make it quite clear that we are being asked to increase the rate to 17 per cent. because of the inflationary effects of the Government's policy. I repeat what we have said before in the House, that the main reason for our high interest rates is

not technical, having to do with monetary targets and borrowing requirements, although they are subsidiary to it. The main reason why we are being asked to sanction an interest rate of 17 per cent. is that the Government have deliberately put up inflation since they came into office by at least 8 per cent., and perhaps even more. Before long, inflation will be running at 20 per cent.
If we have an inflation rate of 20 per cent., we cannot have an MLR much below 20 per cent., whatever theories, philosophies and views we have about monetary targets, monetary control or anything else. The two must go together.
This little order is a by-product of the Government's financial mismanagement—their deliberate abrogation of their primary duty to control inflation. Instead, they have taken deliberate measures to put up the rate of inflation. That has put up interest rates, with the result that we are being asked to pass an order to change the rate in this technical area from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent.
The other reason, subsidiary to the inflation point, is that the Government, having put up inflation deliberately, as I have described, reduced the monetary targets. We have inflation going up and the monetary targets coming down. With the need to sell Government stock and to control bank lending, interest rates must inevitably be higher, and now we are suffering a 17 per cent. MLR.
It is instructive to note that we are concerned here with close companies. This is a technical taxation point. Most close companies are merely small private companies. They are the kind of small businesses that hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches were championing in Opposition, but now, in Government, they seem to accept with a certain amount of equanimity the high interest rates that are killing the very small businesses that they were apparently very concerned about in Opposition.
The small companies that we are concerned about here will now be able—I do not deny that they should be able to do so—to pay interest rates of up to 17 per cent. on money lent to them by participators. I remind the House that that money will now go out as interest, whereas if interest rates had been lower that


money could have been kept in those companies for investment, for ploughing back, and for improving the potential and the growth of those companies.
The Minister of State has not told us why it is necessary to bring forward this order now and when the order will come into operation. There is no date on it because, obviously, until the House approves the order no date can be included. But what is the point of bringing the order forward now when we are going to have the Budget in less than two months' time? Why on earth is it necessary, within less than two months of the Budget, to rush through this measure to increase the interest rate from 12 per cent. to 17 per cent.? It could well have waited until the Budget.
I hope that if the Minister of State catches your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will tell us what is the purpose of doing this at this time. The question is pertinent, because until the House knows why it is necessary to raise this rate it is very difficult to know whether or not to approve the measure.
We are told by Government Ministers, and we constantly read in the financial press, that interest rates are coming down; the recession is upon us, the Government have got full control of borrowing and are going to cut public expenditure in all directions, and the natural consequence is that interest rates will come down.
If that is so, what is the point of sanctioning a 17 per cent. MLR when the object of the work that the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Minister of State will be doing in the next few weeks, on public expenditure—getting a firm control of it and producing their five-year plans and monetary targets—is to reduce interest rates?
I ask the Minister of State to tell the House why it is being asked to approve 17 per cent. and enshrined it in an order on enactment. The background to interest rates is, of course, inflation and borrowing and monetary targets, so I must ask the Minister of State to be a little more forthcoming with the House and tell us, for instance, what the Government's assessments are of the rate of inflation, because this is crucial to intrest rates. We were told that towards the end of

this year the rate of inflation might come down to 14 per cent.—I think that is the Treasury forecast. Is that still the Government's estimate? Was that the estimate when this order was discussed in the Treasury? Some people believe that it will be much higher than 14 per cent. by the end of this year. Indeed, it is going to rise to 20 per cent. or more by the middle of the year. If the Government get it down to 14 per cent. by the end of this year, I think that they will be very lucky. I would have thought—the fact that we are being asked to approve a 17 per cent. equivalent to MLR is an indication that the Government agree with me—that the Government will be very lucky if they get inflation down to much less than 20 per cent. by the end of the year.
Again, I think that we should be told something about the public sector borrowing requirement. What is the Government's assessment of the borrowing requirement for next year. If it is going to be lower, why on earth is this order necessary? I remind the House that the 12 per cent. remained effective for about four years. Is the Minister of State now intending that this rate of 17 per cent. should remain effective for four years?
I think that we should be told what the assessments are. Perhaps the Government have no idea what the PSBR is going to be next year—that would not surprise me—but the Financial Secretary has been making very learned speeches in the City explaining these matters, so the Government must have some idea. Will the Minister of State tell us what the PSBR will be? It will be £9 billion this year, so perhaps it will be £9½ billion next year. Who knows? I do not suppose that the Government know exactly.

Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to give the House the information that the right hon. Gentleman requests, even if he were minded to do so?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not exactly a point of order for the Chair. The reply that the Minister of State gives is a matter for him.

Mr. Davies: I am surprised by the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). PSBR is not a State secret. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is one of a group who want four-year targets published for the PSBR. The Minister must have come to an assessment. If not, why bring forward the order? Why put 17 per cent. in the order if no assessment has been made about inflation, interest rates, the PSBR and monetary targets? The Minister owes it to the House to give an indication of the working behind that figure of 17 per cent. Many people want to know. If the Government believe that we are stuck with 17 per cent. MLR for two, three or four years, it is important for the House and people outside to appreciate what is happening.
I hope that there will be some indication. Will the PSBR remain the same? Will it be £9 billion? Will it be £9·5 billion? I do not ask for exact figures. Will it be higher? There is a school of thought that during a recession—this Government have certainly caused a recession—it should be increased. Perhaps it will be £11 billion next year. Who knows? The other component for determining the figure of 17 per cent., apart from the inflation rate and the PSBR, is the monetary targets themselves. I do not ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to provide those.
If we are talking about a PSBR next year of £9 billion, monetary targets of between 7 per cent. and 12 per cent. and an inflation rate of close on 20 per cent. by the end of next year, it makes sense for the Minister to bring forward the order. If we work back from 17 per cent. and assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not produce another order in six months' time and that 17 per cent. will be the going interest rate for some time to come, we have a PSBR of between £9 billion and £9·5 billion next year, an inflation rate of nearly 20 per cent. by the end of next year, and a monetary target of between 7 per cent. and 11 per cent., or possibly less. It may well be that that is the Government's assessment and that is why the hon. and learned Gentleman is enshrining in the order an interest rate of 17 per cent.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bring another order forward after the Budget, when cuts in public expenditure

have been made to reduce the 17 per cent. rate, or is he envisaging that we are stuck with 17 per cent. MLR for some time?

Mr. Peter Rees: With his customary adroitness and eloquence, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has sought to enlarge a debate on what is essentially a rather modest order into an examination of an area of Government economic policy. Of course, I am happy to debate with him or with any other hon. Member the validity, advantages and solidity of the Government's economic policy. I do not know whether I should be in order to do so, but I am always happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman. I know his deep experience, skill, acumen and application to these measures.
The right hon. Gentleman asks for the reason for the order. It is because on all past precedents established by Administrations that he, no doubt, supported—I do not recall whether he was in the House in 1969, but he certainly was in 1974—they felt it right, as we do, to keep the limits in section 285 in line with the bank rate or the minimum lending rate. I do not recall that on either of those occasions it was felt necessary to justify the Government's economic policies. Nevertheless, I feel robustly confident about the Government's economic policies.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the prospects for interest rates. I emphasise at once that to establish the reason for this order it is unnecessary for me to convince the House that interest rates will remain at present levels for any length of time. It is a question of doing an elementary measure of justice to those involved in close companies.
The right hon. Gentleman asked where we stand in relation to the small business sector. We stand where we have always stood—unlike the Labour Party. The Labour Party wishes to grind small businesses into the dust. It has no place for small businesses in its mythology. It likes large businesses, whose arms it can twist. Eventually, it can nationalise them. We believe in small companies. The example that we have selected tonight is that of close companies. Perhaps it is a narrow, more specialised


corporate instrument, but we believe that to treat those businesses and their directors and shareholders fairly it is necessary to adjust the rate.
That is our philosophy, and I state it with pride. I hope that I have stated it with sufficient clarity to convince the House. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not convinced.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the prospects for interest rates. Since the increase in minimum lending rate, three-month rates have averaged about 17 per cent. However, the yield in money market rates has been on a downward slope beyond those three months. That indicates a market expectation of a cooling in short-term rates. Perhaps I do not command the enthusiasm of the right hon. Gentleman. Presumably, he would like to see the minimum lending rate creep up yet further. He is a prophet of doom.
Let us look at what has happened. My right hon. and hon. Friends have stressed that there should be a prospect of lower interest rates. Government policies reduce both the rate of inflation and monetary growth. However, the timing of any fall in that rate must depend on several factors. Of course, we need to be sure that monetary growth is under control.
The right hon. Gentleman should consider with a blush the vagaries of the monetary policy that was pursued by the previous Labour Administration. He was a distinguished member of that Government and presided over that policy. Of course, we warmly commended the actions that he took under pressure from the International Monetary Fund. We were less enthusiastic about his actions in the run-up to the general election. He has pure fiscal and monetary principles. I hope that one day he will stand up boldly and proclaim that he is a monetarist. There are gradations of monetarism. Basically and philosophically, he is not so remote from this Administration in his approach to monetary policy.
We have all read the synopses of Lord Underhill's report in the press. We know the pressures under which the right hon. Gentleman worked prior to the general election. Mercifully, the Government are not under such pressures. Therefore, we

shall not relax monetary pressures until we are convinced that inflation has been squeezed out of the economy.
I am a little diffident about enlarging the ambit of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, you have been kind enough to treat my intervention with some indulgence. I hope that I can discuss this important question as we shall come back to it again whenever we debate general economic affairs. I also hope that we shall have an opportunity, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to debate the White Paper on expenditure. At about the same time, we shall have an opportunity to debate the Budget. We can then examine the broad and important questions of economic policy.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to address his mind to one question. Why bring forward the order within six weeks of the Budget? Surely, if the Budget and the public expenditure exercise—the cuts of £2 billion that the Prime Minister seeks—have been so successful, he will be able to bring forward an order with an interest rate of 15 per cent. or 14 per cent. If that exercise has been successful, interest rates should fall. Perhaps the Government are not very confident about a fall in interest rates.

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that it is over two months since the minimum lending rate was put up. He will recall that there have been other consequential amendments. For example, we put up the rates of interest on unpaid tax in early January. I do not recall the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends making a great palaver about that exercise. He reads too much into what is basically a simple and elementary measure of justice to the small company sector.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that he is concerned about the small company sector. If he did, I should admire his candour. Indeed, if he does not rise on this point I shall think the less of him. We know where his heart lies—with the big battalions that he and his hon. Friends below the Gangway feel that they can manipulate when they are in power. They feel that they can twist their arms more readily and that they are more susceptible to pressures from the trade union movement. They feel that at the


end of the day they may even be able to nationalise them. That is not our approach.
Let us not get the problem out of perspective. It is a very small—one might almost be disposed to say technical—measure, but it is not entirely technical. It accords a measure of justice to the small company sector.
We recognise that Administrations that the right hon. Gentleman supported have been very ready to adjust without overmuch explanation. We have accepted the adjustments. I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to make a mountain out of this relatively small measure. It is a measure of justice. It allows people to take out by way of interest from close companies without fiscal disadvantages.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends below the Gangway wish to cram on to the small company sector every kind of fiscal disadvantage. That is one of the great divides between the two sides of the House. We do not share that philosophy. There has been a change since 3 May. One of the small symptoms of that change is this order.
We need not spend over-long on the Government's fiscal and monetary policies. They are well known. I almost feel disposed to apologise to the House for having to elaborate on our monetary policies. We take a firm and robust view.
It is not for me to speculate—indeed, how can I?—as to when it will be possible to bring the minimum lending rate down. The right hon. Gentleman and the City can speculate, but let us wait until circumstances make that propitious.
The right hon. Gentleman is correct to point out that we are only two months away from the Budget. I do not feel that this small measure need wait two months. The circumstances are propitious. They justify it. On that basis, I hope that the House and the right hon. Gentleman will feel that it is entirely appropriate that we should introduce it to the House now and will allow it to pass without any demur or Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Income Tax (Excess Interest As Distributions) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 14 January, be approved.

EDUCATION (TAYSIDE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I raise this debate on the Adjournment out of serious concern about the declining provision for education and out of worry over the effects of the recent curtailment in the number of teachers and the quality of education in Tayside region. I also have fears about the effects of the next round of education cuts, especially in the light of the outdated but sinister needs survey conducted by the Treasury that has received so much publicity.
The argument that I wish to develop is twofold. First, Tayside regional council has handled education in a rather catastrophic manner. It has gone far further than the Government suggested. The council has supported cuts. It has gone ahead with cuts in staffing that other regions have not attempted. There is real doubt whether the standard of education in Tayside. and particularly in Dundee, can be maintained. I wish to ask the Minister whether he will use his influence, or constraint, to prevent further disruption in the education services.
My second objective is to show the Government the harm that can be done by ill-considered and unjustified cuts. I have no idea, especially after the debate to which we have just listened, what nature of hell's brew has been concocted by the Treasury for the Budget. What is known is that Tayside regional council was thinking of a 7·8 per cent. budget cut in real terms in the education sector. Already, in the region, particularly in the city of Dundee, substantial public reaction has manifested itself, apart from reaction among the teaching profession. One parent in my constituency stated:
Whatever happens to children now will very seriously affect them for the rest of their lives. We cannot expect them to fight their own case. So we must do it for them.
Last Thursday there was a one-day strike in the city of Dundee, which meant that 25,000 out of the 32,000 pupils at Dundee schools lost their education for the day. The cause of the strike was that the regional council, without consultation, had rushed ahead with cuts in staffing. Unlike the Minister who called


for staffing cuts, early this month, through wastage, Tayside region went ahead and terminated the short-term contracts of 130 teachers. Seventy-three of them worked in the city of Dundee.
Only two other local authorities, so far as I am aware, have attempted to make cuts. They are Strathclyde and the Borders. Both have contented themselves with cuts in ancillary matters. None has attempted making staff cuts. It was this factor, together with lack of consultation, that provoked a dispute in relation to Greenfield primary school at Whitfield, in my constituency, and subsequently the one-day strike to which I have referred.
All that members of the staff received was curt notes of dismissal a few weeks before Christmas. The regional council showed no thought for the interests of the children affected, let alone the teachers whose jobs were being lost.
The effect of the cuts made as a result of the termination of those appointments was real. The EIS has said that 27 of those teachers have since been reinstated, but 20 have been transferred compulsorily to other schools. As a result of the changes, virtually every primary school in Dundee and some primary schools in Perth and Kinross and Angus have had to make mid-session changes in timetabling and class organisation. In some schools, the changes have been drastic. One school had to telescope 19 classes into 16 and most of its pupils returned in January to find that they had new classmates and new teachers.
In many schools, composite classes—that is, mixed year groupclasses—had to be formed for the first time. Visiting specialist teaching was seriously reduced. Educational priority area schools had their staffing advantages whittled away. In one school, at least, special provision for the teaching of immigrant children was entirely removed. What worries me considerably is that 13 teachers in remedial subjects lost their jobs. This means that children, backward in education, have lost the opportunity of catching up with their peers in the same age group.
I am informed that between 1,800 and 2,000 children in the city of Dundee have been affected by the changes. I should like the Minister to indicate the position

of the 30 posts under the circular 991 scheme designed to provide for additional staffing in schools in deprived areas. These 30 posts are funded by the Government under the rate support grant arrangements at least until 31 March 1982. They form part of the national staffing standards in the primary schools. By its decision to phase out these posts, and by absorbing the teachers concerned into its normal school staffing, Tayside regional council has departed from national staffing standards and may well have forfeited the rate support grant that it would have received in respect of those posts.
The chairman of the education committee apparently was under the impression that the rate support grant was available under circular 991 and could be transferred to normal primary staffing, but the EIS takes a different view, and I should like to know the actual position from the Minister.
The effects of the cuts were recognised by the director of education, Mr. David Robertson. I wrote to him on 14 December 1979 asking what was likely to happen, and I received a reply on 14 January in which he sent me a copy of the report that he had sent to his education committee. In that report the director said that his purpose was to advise the committee that there had been a substantial reaction to the recently imposed expenditure cuts. The effects of these were beginning to be felt and the public had become sensitised to the possibility of further cuts in the education service during the 1980–81 financial year. He said that there had been protests, including requests for staff whose fixed contracts had not been renewed to be re-engaged from teacher organisations, school councils, school staffs, parent-teacher associations, individual teachers and parents, community councils and other groups. When education officers had been asked to account for the expenditure cuts, the explanations had been given along the lines of a rationale, a copy of which was sent to me.
The director of education went on to say that the main burden of the protests had been in relation to the non-renewal of fixed-term contracts. This had caused
considerable disturbance with changes of primary class teachers in mid-session, and the reduction of support from visiting teachers of music, needlework, art and physical education.


There had also been complaints about larger classes, composite classes, reductions in curricular options, increased teaching loads for promoted staff, less remedial help for less able pupils, increased timetabling difficulties when staff were absent, less staff release for in-service training, alleged erosion of educational standards and insufficient consultation. That was the director of education emphasising and repeating some of the things which the EIS had already said.
There is also clear evidence that Tayside has been run by a group of educational philistines who apparently place the education of young people at a low level of priority, regardless of the fact that a sound education is one of the main factors which will help to rescue the Tayside region, particularly the city of Dundee, from the economic doldrums in which it is at present.
Although the region denies that it is the second lowest spender on education, a recent analysis by Mr. J. K. Morrison, printed in the Dundee Courieron 24 January, brought out certain facts. First, all departmental spending, bar education, has risen faster than either the total regional budget or the cost of living index, and central administration has been far and away the most extravagant spender.
Secondly, within the education budget, administration costs have risen faster than all the others. Thirdly, the greatest savings have been made on supplies such as textbooks. In this area there has been a 26 per cent. increase compared with the total educational budget increase of 48 per cent. I have noticed that myself. My elder daughter, who attends a school in my constituency, does not bring home textbooks as I did when I was young. She gets duplicated sheets. Apparently this is customary throughout the region now because the amount of expenditure on textbooks has not kept pace with inflation. A survey has shown that there has been a 100 per cent. increase in the cost of books, but expenditure on them has increased by only 26 per cent.
Mr. Morrison has drawn the conclusion from this study that the proportion spent on education by Tayside is declining. He said that at the start of regionalisation when the different education authorities were amalgamated into one, the total expenditure was 60·4 per cent. However,

at the end of the period of the study it had declined as a total of the budget to 57·7 per cent.—a very substantial drop. If one-half of 1 per cent. had been taken from central administration—[Interruption.]—I hope that you will check the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Fraser), Mr. Deputy Speaker. If he were interested in the subject he should have sought an Adjournment debate himself. Had one-half of 1 per cent. been taken from the central administration costs, it would have avoided this mid-sessional dismissal of fixed-term contract teachers and averted the strike and the overall effects that have reduced educational provision in Dundee.
It is not surprising to me that in these circumstances the Tayside education committee has begun a rethink. It now wants to approach the policy and resources committee with a view to restoring the budget for 1980–81. So far we have been talking about the very abrupt and quite unheard-of changes that have taken place in the middle of a session. It now wants to shield the service from the worst of the cuts.
The committee is trying to pull back as a result of the protests from the community in Dundee and other parts of the Tayside region. I think that it is time for the Government to make clear where they stand in relation to education in the region. I know that the Minister has savaged Lothian regional council, but he must accept that the Tayside regional authority has gone far beyond even the target that was set by his own Government. To make mid-sessional changes of that order is quite unheard of in educational practice. The disturbance to the education of the children, to which I have referred, as a result of the regional authority's action and that of his own Government—if they have given encouragement to Tayside region by their general policy—is the responsibility of the Government.
I want, here and now, to hear from the Minister that, in view of the fact that there may be further disturbances if action is not taken in relation to the problems that have emerged, he will try to persuade the Tayside regional authority to reinstate the teachers who have lost their jobs and to maintain the educational budget. What the Minister


is attempting, in general political terms—in a year when £2,090 million will be paid from the Scottish sector of the North Sea in oil revenues to the Treasury—together with the Tory-controlled local authorities is to allow the educational provision in Tayside to deteriorate and to allow the same thing to happen in other parts of Scotland.
In view of the sums of money—I know of the provisions of the Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill and I know that this is a Treasury estimate—that will be coming in, I ask the Minister to dissociate the Scottish Office from the general policy of the Government. I ask him to stand up for Scotland in this instance and also to make sure that the level of education in Tayside does not diminish for the reasons that I have given. I ask him also to prevent further disturbance to the education of many thousands of children who depend on a good education to give them a first-class start in life.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for raising the question of education on Tayside at this time. It is a pity that in the last couple of minutes of his speech he drifted into the nationalist propaganda that he, amazingly, still seems to believe in, in terms of North Sea oil revenues and other general economic matters.
The problems and difficulties that the hon. Member has set out with his customary clarity enable me to focus on two topics that are important to Tayside and to Scotland as a whole. These are the general economic situation, its implications, particularly for education, and the problems and opportunities presented by the sharply declining number of pupils in our schools. That is something to which I thought the hon. Gentleman might have addressed himself during the last 15 minutes.
In dealing with the general economic situation, I can do no better than echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in his speech on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order on 16 January. The extremely difficult economic situation against which the problems of Tayside are to be seen is set out in the opening

paragraph of the White Paper "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1980–81", Cmnd. 7746. The White Paper notes the long-term deterioration of the British economy and points out that under the previous Administration public spending plans were increased on assumptions about economic growth that were—and can now quite clearly be seen to be—quite unrealistic.
As a first step in bringing current expenditure under control, my right hon. Friend asked all authorities in Scotland to review their spending and to ensure that actual expenditure was held to the level assumed in the rate support grant settlement for 1979–80, which was, of course, the responsibility of the previous Administration.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: He warned authorities at the same time that if they failed to heed his advice they would have difficulty in adjusting their programmes to the more realistic levels of expenditure that he had in mind for 1980–81 and future years. For 1980–81, after extensive consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, my right hon. Friend set current expenditure relevant for RSG at only 3 per cent. below the figure planned by the previous Administration.

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I shall give way in a moment. There are one or two matters to which I should like to address myself.

Mr. John Home Robertson: From a prepared speech.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, in my response to the prepared speech of the hon. Member for Dundee, East. It would have been an even more prepared speech had it been prepared by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson).
Within that figure there was a reduction in expenditure on education. That is the largest single programme and clearly cannot be excluded from the Government's expenditure considerations. The most important consideration to take into account here was the continuing decline in the school population. It would be


irresponsible for the Government to propose increases in total expenditure having regard to such an obvious and steady decline in school numbers.
Staffing ratios in Tayside reveal clearly that there is no education crisis. The local authority is endeavouring to match its expenditure and its revenue. That might seem extraordinary to some Labour Members, but surely it is a most sensible thing to do. The attempts of the local authority to do that are in no way damaging the education provision in Tayside, as the pupil-teacher ratios for Tayside clearly illustrate.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: No. I must reply to some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Wilson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does so.

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, I shall. I shall indicate that in primary schools at September 1979—these are the latest available figures—there was a pupil-teacher ratio of 20·3 to 1 compared with 21·1 to 1 at September 1978. Over that 12 months there was an improvement in the primary schools. The number of teachers employed at September 1979 was sufficient to meet the basic staff complements recommended in circular 1029, plus a flexibility factor of 16·4 per cent. The flexibility factor for primary schools in Tayside was 16·4 at September 1979 compared with the national average of 18·3 and an overall factor of 10 per cent. for which provision was made in the RSG. Therefore, it was 6·4 per cent. above the flexibility factor which was calculated and introduced into the RSG for 1979–80 as part of the previous Labour Government's order.

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: In secondary schools the pupil ratio was 14 to 1, the same as at September 1978. It is irresponsible to claim that there is an education crisis in Dundee. I know that there are some in Tayside who think that there is political advantage to be gained by stoking up the impression that there is such a crisis. However, it is an untrue assertion. The figures that have been collected from all the local authorities indicate clearly that it is a disservice to the regional authority, which can look after itself, and a

disservice to the hon. Gentleman's constituents to stoke up the idea that there is an education crisis in Tayside.

Mr. Ernie Ross: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: There is concern among teachers in Tayside that there may be redundancies during the coming year. If the number of teachers in service in Scotland as a whole in 1979–80 had been more closely in line with the numbers planned for that year and provided for in the RSG order, I would not have expected any difficulty. The figures that I revealed earlier clearly confirm that point.

Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that while in Opposition the Conservative Party made it quite clear what its intention was if it came to Government? During the general election it made a strong point that public expenditure would have to be cut. Is it not rather cynical that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who contributed to the fall of the previous Administration, should raise the matter in the House?
Will the Minister take the opportunity to dissociate the Government from the remarks of the finance convener of Tayside regional council, in the social work department, that it was the declared intention of the Administration not to attain the level of grant allowed by the regional council? Will he advise his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of those remarks, and advise him that he should ensure that the Tayside regional council attains the level of expenditure allowed by the Government?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): In fairness, I must point out that this is the Adjournment debate of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) could hardly expect me to criticise the local authority for taking a prudent view of its expenditure in relation to its revenue. The hon. Gentleman is right that the hon. Member for Dundee, East did, to some extent, bring the Conservative Party into Government earlier than might have been anticipated.
It might be suggested that there is an inconsistency between maintaining that


authorities must make their own decisions and determine their own expenditure priorities and then suggesting to them that they must reduce teacher numbers and thereby lower their staffing standard.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a little cynical of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) to make those points when he campaigned that Scots should make decisions in Scotland? Tayside is making decisions on education for Tayside.

Mr. Fletcher: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is our policy that local authorities should be able to make these decisions in matters of education. The Bill that we debated earlier today—the Education (No. 2) Bill—extends the powers of local authorities to make decisions relating to their expenditure priorities.
Provided that authorities keep within the expenditure limits set by the RSG order, I agree that it is open to them to determine their expenditure priorities among services and within services as they think fit. But the proviso is an important one. Moreover, in a position where primary pupil numbers are falling steadily, it appears to reflect an unusual sense of values for teacher numbers actually to increase and to reflect, with a national pupil-teacher ratio of 20·3 to 1, staffing standards substantially in excess of those recommended in SED circular 1029. The ratio required in 1979–80 by these standards was a national one of 22·1 to 1. The difference between the two ratios accounts for about 1,900 teachers. I have said on a previous occasion that that is a cost of about £15 million, which is a significant part of the Scottish education budget.
The recommendations in the circular were made after extensive consultations both with authorities and with teachers' associations and were in line with the previous Government's expenditure plans for 1979–80. There is really no truth in the suggestion that there is an educational crisis in Tayside because of Government policy or that there is an educational crisis in any other part of Scotland.
The only educational crisis that we are facing is that a number of local authorities are not facing the expenditure implications for which they are

responsible. They are not looking after the interests of their ratepayers as they should.
Certainly, the Government are doing everything in their power to persuade Scottish local authorities of their own responsibilities. In making their decisions, they must face up to decisions that are sometimes a little difficult and unpleasant. They should not duck those issues and leave them for central Government while they spend money in what they consider to be a popular way, although often it is in a spendthrift way.
It would be misleading to imply that adherence to the standards recommended in the circular to which I have referred would result in a lowering of standards or that there is some law of nature which provides that the size of classes must automatically go on getting smaller every year, even in times of severe economic difficulty when it is imperative to achieve a reduction in public expenditure by every possible means.
In fact, we have provided a more favourable pupil-teacher ratio in 1980–81 than was planned for 1979–80 in order to offset the staffing difficulties that obviously result from declining rolls. That point was made clear when the RSG order was presented. The hon. Member for Dundee, East shakes his head, but it is a fact that we have made provision for a more favourable pupil-teacher ratio in 1980–81 than was planned for 1979–80 in order to offset the staffing difficulties to which I have referred.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in the debate on the RSG order that where the basics of education are concerned—that is, the classroom work in our schools—we plan to maintain standards and to make sure that the local authoriites have the financial provision to maintain standards. Opposition Members have made some reference to the Education (No. 2) Bill. If cuts have to be made in education, which, as I have already said, is the largest spender of funds, surely it is wiser—difficult as those decisions might be—to make savings on the peripheral areas of education rather than on the classroom itself.
All expenditure reviews that have taken place have been to make sure that the classroom itself is protected. There is,


therefore, both the scope and necessity for local authorities such as Tayside to bring their staffing levels within the agreed ratios. They can do that without damaging education standards and with out people in the area encouraging scaremongering and other types of activities that do nothing either for education or for the work that the local authorities have to do, whatever their political colour.
In considering questions of expenditure nationally, we would expect Members of Parliament to encourage local authorities to be responsible in their spending. From that point of view, I cannot really imagine what the hon. Gentleman is complaining about.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.